Skip to main content

Full text of "The Princeton Theological Review"

See other formats

xty uJhmlngtra/ 




7? L. 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2016 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


The Princeton 




J. Ross Stevenson 
Benjamin B. Warfield 
John DeWitt 
Geerhardus Vos 
William P. Armstrong 
Frederick W. Loetscher 
Caspar Wistar Hodge 
Henry W. Smith 


Francis L. Patton 
John D. Davis 
Wm. Brenton Greene, Jr. 
Robert Dick Wilson 
Charles R. Erdman 
J. Ritchie Smith 
J. Gresham Machen 
Oswald T. Allis 
H. Dulles 






John D. Davis, Wm. Brenton Greene, Jr., Geerhardus Vos, 
William P. Armstrong 

Copyright 1916 by the Princeton University Press 


Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke. By Geerhardus Vos i 

Points of Contact with Christianity in the Heresies of 
Siamese Buddhism. By Robert E. Speer 62 

A Theological Seminary. By Francis L. Patton 72 

Theological Education in the Light of Present Day Demands. 

By J. Ross Stevenson 82 

The Qualifications of a Preacher. By W. L. McEwan 96 

The Place of Homiletics in the Training of a Minister. By 
J. Ritchie Smith 101 

Redeemer and Redemption. By Benjamin B. Warfield 177 

What is a Miracle? By Caspar Wistar Hodge 202 

Philosophy and the Problem of Revelation. By Henry William 
Rankin 265 

The Divine Messiah in the Old Testament. By Benjamin B. 
Warfield 369 

Suggestions of the Survey Party Regarding Biblical Sites. By 

John D. Davis 417 

The Silence of Ecclesiasticus Concerning Daniel. By Robert 

Dick Wilson 448 

Does My Neighbor Exist? By William Hallock Johnson 529 

Christian Unity, Church Unity, and the Panama Congress. 

By John Fox 545 

The Life and Thought of Plotinus. By George Johnson 579 

A Discipline that calls for Recognition. By W. M. McPheeters 600 



Allis, O. T., 658-665 
Armstrong, W. P., 334-335 
Cantrall, C. M., 162-163 

Davis, J. D., 128-134, 327-331. 4U-447. 491*494. 665-669 
Erdman, C. R., 147-157. 353-354. 679-683 
Fox, John, 545-578 

Greene, W. B., Jr., 116-125, 141-146, 170-172, 313-323, 356-357, 481-489, 
490-491, 5”-5i3, 518-519, 522-523 
Hodge, C. W., 125-126, 141, 202-264, 641-648, 669-676 
Hoskins, J. P., 357-36i 
Hunt, T. W., 163-165, 521-522 
Johnson, George, 127-128, 169, 519-521, 579-599 
Johnson, W. H., 116, 140-141, 473-481, 529-542 
Loetscher, F. W., 335-340, 499-504 
Macloskie, G., 169-170 
McEwan, W. L., 96-100 
McPheeters, W. M., 600-640 
Paist, B. F., Jr., 504-506 
Patton, F. L., 72-81 
Rankin, H., 165-169, 362-363, 489-490 
Rankin, H. W., 265-311 

Russell, G. M., 114-116, 146-147, 312-313, 648-649 
Speer, R. E., 62-71 

Smith, J. R., 101-113, 135, 157-162, 354-355, 513-518, 677-679 

Stevenson, J. R., 82-95 

Vos, G., 1-61 135-139, 361-362, 494-498, 656-658 

Warfield, B. B., 177-201, 323-327, 331 * 334 , 341 * 353 , 369-416, 506-511, 
649-656, 677 

Wilson, R. D., 448-474 



Adams, The Chaplain and the War S 1 ^ 

Archer-Shepherd, The Resurrection of Christ 320 

Baldwin, Genetic Theory of Reality 475 

Bancroft, Reform in the American Historical Association 523 

Bennett, Challenge of the Church 151 

Berkhof, The Christian Laborer in the Industrial Struggle 519 

Berkhof, New Testament Introduction 334 

Bishop of Texas et al, A Book of Offices 151 

Black, The Burthen of the Weeks 160 

Brewster, The Philosophy of Faith 116 

Brookshire, The Law of Human Life 494 

Buckham, Mysticism and Modern Life 343 

Butler, Union League Address 5 22 

Buttenwiesser, The Prophets of Israel 128 

Calkins, A Man and His Money 153 

Campbell, The Place of Prayer in the Christian Religion 1. 147 

Carre, Paul’s Doctrine of Redemption 138 

Carus, Goethe with Special Consideration of His Philosophy 357 

Carus, Kiing Fu Tze 171 

Chapman, The Book of Leviticus 133 

Clark, The Christian Faith 160 

Clark, The Constitutional Doctrines of lustice Harlan 522 

Clay, Inscriptions in Yale Babylonian Collection 663 

Coats, The Christian Life 152 

Cobern, Recent Explorations in the Holy Land 134 

Coffin, The Ten Commandments 141 

Conn, Social Heredity and Social Evolution 312 

Cook, Literary Middle English Reader 521 

Cooke, The Book of Judges and The Book of Ruth 133 

Cooper, Methods and Aims in the Study of Literature 521 

Cornill, The Culture of Ancient Israel 134 

Crossan, Christian Science and Christianity Compared 125 

Dawson, The Ethics of Confucius 322 

Dennison, Some Spiritual Lessons of the War 517 

Doctrina Christiana, Breve Compendio de 682 

Eckman, Literary Primacy of the Bible 681 

Elmslee, The Revised Version. Isaiah XL — LXVI 133 

Faris, The Book of Faith in God 159 

Fergusson, Lessons on the Presbyterian Church 682 

Fergusson, Westminster Superintendent’s Book 682 

Fleming, Devolution in Mission Administration 679 

Fleming, Mysticism in Christianity 343 

Flewelling, Personalism and the Problems of Philosophy 475 

Forsyth, Theology in Church and State 674 

Freeman, The Hour of Prayer 147 

Frere, English Church Ways 130 

George, The Twelve Apostolic Types of Christian Men 513 

Gibbons, The Blackest Page of Modern History 500 

Gilmore, World’s Devotional Classics 678 

Godwin, The Anglican Proper Psalms 134 

Goldsmith, Books relating to the Latin-American Republics 523 

Graves, The Natural Order of Spirit 127 

Grose, Religion and the Mind 354 

Haas, Trends of Thought and Christian Truth 641 

Haldeman, A Great Counterfeit 353 

Haldeman, This Hour not the Hour of the Prince of Peace 518 




Handcock, The Archaeology of the Holy Land 

Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, viii 

Hastings, The Christian Doctrine of Prayer 

Herrmann, Die Wirklichkeit Gottes 

Hicks, Leadership of the Spirit 

Hodges, Class Book of Old Testament History 

Holland, So as by Fire 

Horton, The Spring of Joy and Other Sermons 

Hough, In the Valley of Decision 

Howard, et al. The Sunday-School at Work 

Hughes, The Bible and Life 

Hunting, The Story of Our Bible 

Hurlburt, Six Fools 

Jeheber, Les Femmes de 1914-1915, I 

Jennings, The End of the European War 

Johnston, The Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense 

Jordan, Comparative Religion, its Adjuncts and Allies 

Jordan, Comparative Religion, its Range and Limitations . . . 

Keeler, Ethical Readings from the Bible 

Kellor, Out of Work 

Kern, Vision and Power 

Knudson, The Beacon Lights of Prophecy 

Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages 

Luccock, Christian Science and the Bible 

Macartney, The Parables of the Old Testament 

MacEachen, Catholic Library 

Macfarland, Christian Service and the Modern World 

Macgregor, Christian Freedom 

Mackay, Words of This Life 

Macleod, Afflictions of the Righteous 

MacLeod, What God Hath Joined Together 

Mains, Divine Inspiration 

Martin, Les Protestants Anglais rcfugies a Geneve 

Mason, The Church of England and Episcopacy 

Maxwell, Our National Defence 

McCartney, The Anti-Christ 

McCartney, The Reign of the Prince of Peace 

McGiffert, The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas 

McKnight, The Second Coming of Christ 

Mery, Religion and Science 

Micon, Basic Ideas in Religion or Apologetic Theism 

Miller, Intimate Letters and Personal Problems 

Mitchell, Biographical Studies in Scottish Church History 

More, The Limitations of Science 

Moulton, The Modern Study of Literature 

Murray, Bible Prophecies and the Plain Man 

Needham, The Seven Great Parables 

Noble, The New York Stock Exchange in the Crisis of 1914 

Noble, Spiritual Culture 

Oesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha 

Phelps, Browning — How to Know Him 

Powell, What is a Christian ? 

Preaching Mission, a Nation-Wide 

Rawlinson, Dogma, Fact, and Experience 

Raymond, The Art Philosopher’s Cabinet 

Rees, The Holy Spirit in Thought and Experience 

Ridderbos, Israel en de Baals Afval of Ontwikkeling 

Ritter, War, Science and Civilization 

Roberts, The Three R’s of Rescue Mission Work 

Kobinson, History of Christian Missions 
















1 16 














6 77 
































Robinson, When I Have Crossed the Bar 141 

Rogers, A History of Babylonia and Assyria 329 

Rogers, The Postal Power of Congress 522 

Roman, American Civilization and the Negro 519 

Runnells, Church Class in Psycho-Therapy 680 

Ryle, The Book of Genesis 133 

Schaeffer, Social Legislation of Primitive Semites 658 

Schenck, The Oratory and Poetry of the Bible 158 

Schlatter, Der Mdrtyrer i.d. Anfdngen d. Kirche 656 

Schlatter, Recht und Schuld in der Geschichte 361 

Schumacher, Christus i. s. Prdexistenz u. Kenose n. Phil. 2, 5-8.. 331 

Selden, The Story of the Christian Centuries 505 

Shannon, The New Personality and Other Sermons 159 

Shaw, The After-Meeting 152 

Shearman, The Natural Theology of Evolution 323 

Sheldon, Studies in Recent Adventism 146 

Shelton, Continuous Bloom in America 169 

Shufeldt, America’s Greatest Problem: The Negro 519 

Simpson, Great Ideas of Religion 516 

Skinner, Book of Isaiah i-xxxix 665 

Smith and Bartholomew, Atlas of the Holy Land 491 

Smith, Parent, Child and Church 156 

Stewart, The Colors of the Republic 518 

Stimson, While the War Rages 154 

Stout, To Ammaus and Back 682 

Strickland, Foundations of Christian Belief 117 

Sub Corona, King’s College Sermons 513 

Taylor, Deliverance 499 

Thompson, The Offices of Baptism and Confirmation 149 

Thornton, Conduct and the Supernatural 313 

Tremaine, Church Efficiency 150 

Trull and S’towell, The Sunday-School Teacher 148 

van Leeuwen, Het Evangelie van Mattheus 494 

van Veldhuizen, Het Evangelie van Markus 494 

Ward, Social Evangelism 511 

Warfield, Faith and Life 677 

Warren, The Universe as Pictured in Milton’s Paradise Lost 362 

Wells, The Successful Sunday-School Superintendent 147 

Wells, Presbyterian Christian Endeavor Manual 682 

White, The Churches of Work 156 

Whitney, The Reformation 504 

Wilkinson, Paul and the Revolt Against Him 140 

Wilson, Bahaism and Its Claims 124 

Wilson, John Wesley’s Place in History 501 

Wolman, The Boycott in American Trade Unions 523 


Insert in contents of volume xiii (1915). 

Index of articles, p. iii, “Jesus’ Mission according to His 
own Testimony. By Benjamin B. Warfield, 513.” 

The Princeton 
Theological Review 

JANUARY, 1916 


So far we have considered the Epistle’s idea of revelation 
only from the practical point of view.* It has, however, a 
more theoretical side and this also shows the influence of 
the covenant-conception. More than any other New Testa- 
ment document Hebrews develops what might be called a 
philosophy of the history of revelation. This is partly due 
to the fact that the writer is theologically inclined in gen- 
eral, and evidently attaches importance to the doctrinal pre- 
sentation of the Christian faith. It would be a mistake to 
explain this from speculative tendencies followed for their 
own sake. Of a purely scholastic interest there is no trace 
whatever. But the writer entertains a firm belief in the ef- 
fectiveness of doctrinal enlightenment as a remedial method 
where the soundness and balance of practical Christianity 
are endangered. We certainly gain the impression that 
from the outset he brings to the writing of the Epistle 
a well-defined doctrinal conception of the structure of 
the Christian religion. It can cause no wonder that, 
when a mind of this cast is led to occupy itself with the 
history of revelation, as is actually the case in our Epistle, 
a more or less philosophical or theological construction of 
the history of revelation results. We should, moreover, re- 
member, that from the very earliest times the covenant-idea 
stood not merely in the service of revealed religion in gen- 
eral, but had also lent itself to the very particular use of 
marking the historic progress of the movement of redemp- 
tion and special revelation. The successive stages of God’s 
redemptive and revealing work in the pre-Christian era 
are measured by successive covenants, each introducing new 
forces and principles and each imparting to the ensuing 

* In this Review, 1915 (xiii), pp. 587-632. 


period a distinctive character of its own. Thus the cove- 
nant-idea is an eminently historical idea, most intimately 
associated with the gradual unfolding of God’s self-dis- 
closure to His people. This reaches even back of the 
regime of redemption and characterizes God’s dealings with 
man in the state of rectitude. For, although it is generally 
considered a dogmatic anachronism to carry the covenant- 
idea back into the original religious status of unfallen man, 
as the Reformed Theology has done in its doctrine of the 
covenant of works, a most striking confirmation of the bib- 
lical warrant for this view has of late come from an alto- 
gether unexpected quarter. No less a scholar than Well- 
hausen has observed that in P, the so-called priestly 
document, the ancient history is represented as determined 
in its onward movement by the four covenants which in 
succession God makes with man, whence also the name of 
“the four-covenant-book” has come into use to designate 
the peculiar structure of this document. And as the first 
of these four covenants, it is maintained by Wellhausen 
and others, the author must have counted the arrangement 
entered into by God with our first parents in their original 
state. Thus the much ridiculed “covenant of works” has 
been exegetically rehabilitated and it has been shown that 
the Reformed theologians were not so utterly lacking in 
historic sense as their critics believed. In regard to the 
redemptive developments recorded in the Old Testament, 
it is plain that these result in large measure from the re- 
peated and progressive subsumption of the people of God 
under the principle of the berith. With the critical conten- 
tion that this is a later dogma first introduced into the 
older documents by the redactors we need not here occupy 
ourselves, since the writer of Hebrews could reckon and 
did reckon only with the Old Testament in its present form, 
in which the influence of the berith-idea is confessedly pres- 
ent. The comparative tenor of the Epistle would therefore 
of itself invite the representation of this idea as one of 
the chief factors in the development of sacred history. 



But the actual extent to which this is done by the writer 
is due to still another more specific cause. The Epistle does 
not content itself with dividing the history of redemption 
and revelation into two SiadrjKai, from a purely soterio- 
logical point of view : it brings the covenant-idea into con- 
nection with eschatology and by doing this first introduces 
into it the breadth and absoluteness that pertain to the 
eschatological outlook. So long as the consciousness of 
redemption contents itself with living in the present mo- 
ment, or ranges over a limited outlook backwards and for- 
wards, the theological impulse may remain dormant and no 
desire need be felt to bring order and system into the 
wealth of the divine acts and disclosures as one after the 
other they enter into the cognition or experience of man. 
But the matter becomes entirely different when eschatology 
posits an absolute goal at the end of the redemptive process 
corresponding to an absolute beginning of the world in 
creation ; for then, no longer a segment but the whole sweep 
of history is drawn into one great perspective and the 
mind is impelled to view every part in relation to the whole. 
To do this means to construct a primitive theological system. 
Thus eschatology becomes the mother of theology and that 
first of all of theology in the form of a philosophy of 
redemptive history. While it is true that theology in the 
technical sense should not be sought in the Bible, because 
the appearance of it presupposes the completion of the 
process of revelation, nevertheless rudimentary preforma- 
tions of it can be clearly discovered in certain Biblical writ- 
ings. These emerge precisely where the mind of the organs 
of revelation becomes more or less clearly conscious of the 
historical structure of revelation, especially where this con- 
sciousness attains to the broad sweep of the eschatological 
vision. So we can speak of a theology of Isaiah and a the- 
ology of Paul, because in both the idea of redemption as a 
God-guided process moving to an appointed goal and 
rounded off in itself exercises a degree of unifying and 
systematizing influence on all their religious knowledge. 



The fundamental scheme of which this eschatological the- 
ology in early times, even before the New Testament period, 
avails itself is that of the two ages, the present age and the 
age to come, a scheme which has passed over from Jewish 
thought into New Testament teaching. In this developed 
form it is not found in the Old Testament. But the sub- 
stance is found there, and, what is even more important, 
this substance has in one passage of the Old Testament 
created for itself another form in the distinction between 
the two beriths, the old berith made at Sinai and the new 
berith to be made in the future. This distinction, where it 
occurs in Jeremiah, has eschatological significance; it is not 
the meaning of the prophet that the new berith which is 
promised may in course of time have to give way to a newer 
one ; the consciousness lying back of this utterance differs 
essentially from the earlier consciousness, which counted a 
succession of beriths one replacing another. To the prophet 
the future berith promised is a final and absolute 
arrangement, beyond which in the perfection and perman- 
ence of its appointments nothing can be conceived. It 
gathers into itself all the wealth of eschatological expecta- 
tion. The distinction between it and the old berith assumes 
for Jeremiah the character of a great bi-section of history; 
and at the beginning of each of the periods thus dis- 
tinguished stands a fundamental redemptive self-disclosure 
of God. It is this idea of a succession of two beriths that 
has yielded the earliest and the inspired form of the phi- 
losophy of redemption — a form older than the doctrine of 
the two ages. But the peculiarity of Hebrews consists in 
this, that it brings into fructifying contact these two dis- 
tinctions, that between the present age and the age to come 
and that between the first covenant and the second covenant. 
The new Staffer/ is to the writer of Hebrews as little as it 
was to Jeremiah something temporary and provisional. It 
embodies the consummation of all the work of God for His 
people; it is the ocean into which all the rivers of history 
roll their waters from the beginning of the world. Al- 



though the first covenant does not quite coincide with the 
first age, since it dates from Sinai and the first age began 
with creation, yet in regard to the second covenant and the 
age to come there is complete identification; those who are 
under the one are in principle in the other; Christians do 
taste the powers of the age to come and have arrived at the 
eschatological Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city 
of the living God. The revelation of the New Covenant is 
not only better comparatively speaking; it is final and 
eternal because delivered in a Son, than whom God could 
send no higher revealer. That the New Covenant actually -/ 
has this comprehensive eschatological significance, and is 
not a mere soteriological episode, is easily obscured by the 
prominent place which the ideas of priesthood and sacrifice 
with their typical antecedents in the history of Israel oc- 
cupy, whereby it might appear as if for the writer they 
formed merely a counterpart of what was characteristic of 
a definite historical development, and so themselves 
also were to be regarded in the same light. What cor- 
responds to an intervening episode may seem to partake of 
the nature of an intervening episode. This would be a false 
inference if for no other reason than that the author counts 
the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ among the eternal 
realities. But the error may also be corrected by observing 
that in the opening chapters of the Epistle, where the out- 
come rather than the process of the Christian salvation is 
dwelt upon, a form of statement prevails which represents 
Christianity as the counterpart and fulfilment of the origi- 
nal order of things instituted at creation. The New Cove- 
nant as the goal of God’s special dealings with man is 
determined by the point of departure of this divine pro- 
cedure in the primeval state of man. The Christian order 
of things, the great salvation as the author calls it, involves fc- 
according to the second chapter subjection of the entire 
oUovfie vt) to mankind. And this subjection is described in 
words of the eighth Psalm, a creation-Psalm which relates 
to the world-rule God at the beginning placed before man 



as his destiny. The implication therefore is, that in the 
new obcov^evT) this original destiny of mankind is first 
realized through Christ. The 14th verse of the same 
chapter speaks of redemption as deliverance from the 
power and fear of death and from the devil who reigns 
through death, a representation which clearly points back 
to the account of the temptation and fall of man. Again 
in the fourth chapter, where the Christian state of salvation 
appears as a “rest”, the author, though in part speaking of 
this in terms derived from the rest of Canaan, nevertheless 
finds its deeper and ultimate basis in the rest of God, the 
aa/3/3a,Tia/j.6<;, which crowned the creation of the world. 

The New Covenant then coincides with the age to come; 
it brings the good things to come; it is incorporated into 
the eschatological scheme of thought. Such a way of look- 
ing at the Christian state is, of course, not confined to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. Other writers of the New Testa- 
ment, especially Paul, are quite familiar with this point of 
view and not infrequently represent even the present life 
of the believer on earth as semi-eschatological, as an an- 
ticipation in principle of the conditions of the life to come. 
But the difference between this and what we meet with in 
Hebrews should not be overlooked. Paul does not apply 
this train of thought to the idea of the covenant, the Epistle 
to the Hebrews does. As a result, what Paul gives in his 
distinction between the present world and the world to come 
and in the equation of Christianity with the latter is a 
religious philosophy of the history of the race in general. 
The present age and the present world stand for the reign 
of sin and evil, “the flesh”, as Paul calls it; the age or 
world to come is the realm of redemption, the reign of the 
Spirit. “The present age” and “the present world” always 
have for Paul an evil connotation : the two eras of escha- 
tology are ethically contrasted. The writer of Hebrews 
on the other hand, by specifically equating the world to 
come with the New Covenant, is led to identify the first age 
with the first covenant. The distinction between the two 



ages is drawn entirely within the sphere of redemption and 
revelation and the primitive philosophy or theology at- 
taching itself to this distinction becomes specifically a 
philosophy of redemption and revelation. While the con- 
ception produced by this inter-marriage between the coven- 
ant-idea and eschatology is not so great and sweeping as 
the Pauline scheme, it represents within its narrower limits 
a most valuable positive supplement to the more negative 
outlines of redemptive history as drawn by Paul. 

The service rendered by the author of Hebrews in this 
field is not, however, confined to the recognition of the 
principles of progress, comprehensiveness and finality in- 
herent in the covenant-idea. Profound perceptions as these 
are, they do not touch the fundamental problem of the phi- 
losophy of history, which is likewise the basic problem of 
the philosophy of redemption and revelation. It is not 
enough to know that history moves towards a goal; the 
great question, without the solution of which the thinking 
mind cannot rest satisfied, concerns the element of identity 
in the flux of development. What is the stable, the con- 
stant substance that underlies the ceaseless never-resting 
change? To what extent and where and in what form is 
the goal that beckons at the end present at the beginning? 
Derive the past and present all their value from the future, 
or do they contain a solid reality of eternal worth in them- 
selves ? These questions are urgently pressing in the 
sphere of religion, where the dignity of God and the dig- 
nity of man’s spiritual relation to Him do not at any point 
allow the human subject and its Godward experience to be 
regarded as a mere transitory phase, a passing ripple on the 
surface of the stream. And they become most pressing of 
all when we enter the field of revealed religion, of 
special redemptive history, of the covenant of grace, where 
the bond between God and man becomes so intimate and 
precious that the postulate of a fixed essence inalterably the 
same through the ages will not be denied. God is not a 
God of the dead, but a God of the living; to Him all in all 



times must live ; and an evolution which would leave no 
room for the presence in every one of its stages and moments 
of such a true life unto God is incompatible with the idea of 
religion itself. There is a catholicity of religion not merely 
in the form of space but as well in the form of time. It is 
the distinctive merit of the Epistle to the Hebrews that, 
in connection with its doctrine of the covenants, it has 
raised this great problem and found for it an answer that 
satisfies not only the religious mind in general but satisfies 
the heightened covenant-consciousness of the Christian be- 
liever in particular. 

Let us briefly consider this solution and endeavor to trace 
the way in which the Epistle has arrived at it. The idea 
that the Old Covenant prefigures or foreshadows the content 
of the New does not of itself furnish it. For the figure and 
the shadow are not the reality, and it is precisely for the 
reality during the time that they flitted across the scene of 
history that we are looking. Here again it is by the identi- 
fication of the two covenants with the two ages and the two 
worlds of eschatology that the Epistle approaches the so- 
lution of the problem. In order to understand this we must 
recall the peculiar manner in which the older eschatology 
was affected by the Christian belief in the advent of the 
Messiah. Previous to Christianity the two ages and the 
two corresponding worlds were conceived as purely succes- 
sive. The present age must come to an end before the com- 
ing age can have its beginning ; the present evil world must 
pass away, before the coming perfect world can take its 
place; between the two no overlapping is conceivable. But 
no sooner has this scheme passed over on to Christian 
ground than a remarkable change in this very respect ap- 
pears. The distinction between two chronologically suc- 
cessive stages becomes, in part at least, the distinction be- 
tween two contemporaneous states or worlds. This is 
brought about by the appearance of the Christ and the ac- 
complishment of His work. In Christian eschatology the 
Christ occupies from beginning to end the center of the 



stage. All developments, all transactions, all gifts, all ex- 
periences that make up the drama of the great world-change 
are related to Him and derive their significance from Him; 
He is the representative and exponent of the future life in its 
totality. “To be forever with the Lord” is the succinct ex- 
pression of what the eschatological hope means to a Chris- 
tian. But, where eschatology and the Christ are thus closely 
identified, there inevitably the appearance of the Christ and 
even the partial accomplishment of His work must be in- 
terpreted as ushering in the initial stage of the future world, 
the opening chapter of the life of eternity. We can actually 
observe this in Paul, who teaches that through the cross of 
Christ the believer has been in principle snatched out of this 
present evil world and translated into the eternal kingdom 
of the Son of God’s love. The resurrection of Christ is to 
the Apostle the first act in the general resurrection that 
will introduce the final kingdom of God. Christians have 
in effect passed over from the age that is into the age to 
come. Their commonwealth is above, where they sit with 
Christ in heavenly places, and all that is necessary in the 
future is that they shall undergo the last change which will 
make them, in body as well as in soul, redeemed, super- 
natural, eschatological creatures. 

Now the point to which in this development our atten- 
tion should be directed concerns the resulting coexistence 
between two things that hitherto had been considered purely 
successive. If the second world has received its actual be- 
ginning through Christ, and if nevertheless, as cannot be 
denied, the first world, this present world, is still continuing 
in its course, then it is clear that both now exist contempo- 
raneously. From thinking of the eschatological state as 
future the Christian mind is led to conceive of it as actually 
present but situated in a higher sphere. The horizontal, 
dramatic way of thinking gives place in part to a process 
of thought moving in a perpendicular direction and distin- 
guishing not so much between before and after, but rather 
between higher and lower. Within the Epistles of Paul we 


can trace the gradual transition from the one habit of 
thought to the other. Although the later representation is 
in germ present from the beginning, and although the earlier 
is retained until the very last, yet, broadly speaking, the 
dramatic conception is more in evidence in the first group 
of Epistles, while the other view-point prevails in the Epis- 
tles of the first imprisonment. In the latter the contrast 
between here and there in a local sense, rather than between 
now and then in a chronological sense, prevails. 

In the content of this higher world to which the Chris- 
tian belongs two elements must be further distinguished. 
It is in part a product of the historical redemptive process. 
The completion of Christ’s work and His return in glorified 
state to the heavenly sphere have first given this sphere its 
final character and as such it now exists alongside of this 
present lower world. But, of course, they have not created 
heaven. When the world to come was once identified with 
heaven the reflection lay near that it was not only existing 
now but had been existing previously to the Messianic epoch. 
The higher world was there from the beginning; it had a 
stable, original content, before it was affected by the ap- 
pearance of the Messiah. Both these elements are recog- 
nized in the later Pauline teaching. The second one, that 
of the original existence of the main content of the heavenly 
life, finds expression in this, that Paul in the later Epistles 
speaks of the eschatological word not as having been pro- 
duced or created but as having been revealed. The Christ 
Himself, who constitutes its center, shows in His life this 
twofold aspect in which it may be viewed. He belongs to 
it ever since it existed. His coming was an apokalypsis, a 
manifestation of its content. As a heavenly Being He 
abode upon the earth. But His resurrection and return to it 
likewise contributed to its perfecting. Thus it derives its be- 
ing from the first and second creation alike. While, how- 
ever, these two constitutent elements of the higher world are 
clearly present with Paul, they are much more clearly and 
pointedly distinguished in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It 


is in Hebrews for the first time that conscious reflection is 
observed and positive emphasis placed upon the primordial, 
constant, stable existence of the higher world, antedating 
and overarching and outlasting all temporal developments, a 
world of the a’uoviov, not subject to change and harboring 
the supreme realities. Hebrews recognizes, with Paul, that 
the finale of the great drama of redemption in the death 
and ascension of Christ has put its impress upon the things 
above. The heavenly sanctuary was cleansed ; through 
Christ’s sacrifice the spirits of just men were made perfect; 
He carried with His new life the supreme form of the 
rest of God into the Sabbath that had been celebrated above 
from the beginning. Still the main stress is laid on the 
other side, on the fact that in reality all along the world to 
come had preexisted in its heavenly form. The chrono- 
logical relation is reversed ; that which in course of histori- 
cal development appeared the last was in a deeper and truer 
sense the first. Broadly speaking the Christian things are 
not a new product of time ; they are rather the descent into 
time of the essence of eternity. We touch here upon what 
expositors are accustomed to call the Alexandrianism of 
the Epistle and in which they recognize the influence of 
Philo and of the older Platonic speculation with its distinc- 
tion between the two worlds, that of ideas and that of 
sense, but what in our view can better be explained as the 
direct outcome of the internal development of Christian 
eschatology itself. 

We shall now be prepared to understand how the recog- 
nition, that the two worlds exist and have existed side by 
side from the beginning, enables the author of Hebrews to 
solve the chief problem of the history of redemption and 
revelation. For it is in Hebrews that the first age and the 
first world are identified with the first covenant. When, 
therefore, the question is raised, how the Old Covenant can 
be identical in substance with the New, what is the common 
essence, that notwithstanding the great progress from the 
one to the other, makes them two coherent stages in the 


expression and conveyance of the same spiritual reality, the 
answer is immediately forthcoming: that same world of 
heavenly spiritual realities, which has now come to light 
in the Person and work of Christ, already existed during 
the course of the Old Covenant, and in a provisional typical 
way through revelation reflected itself in and through re- 
demption projected itself into the religious experience of the 
ancient people of God, so that they in their own partial 
manner and measure had access to and communion with 
and enjoyment of the higher world, which has now been 
let down and thrown open to our full knowledge and pos- 
session. In other words, the bond that links the Old and the 
New Covenant together is not a purely evolutionary one, in- 
asmuch as the one has grown out of the other; it is, if we 
may so call it, a transcendental bond : the New Covenant in 
its preexistent, heavenly state reaches back and stretches 
its eternal wings over the Old, and the Old Testament 
people of God were one with us in religious dignity and 
privilege; they were, to speak in a Pauline figure, sons of 
the Jerusalem above, which is the mother of all. 

This is a profounder solution than is offered in the well- 
known formula of Augustine: “the New Testament is 

latent in the Old, the Old Testament lies open in the New”. 
More profound, because, together with the statement of the 
fact, it gives the reason for the fact. The latent existence 
of the verities and potencies of the Christian religion in the 
old dispensation are due to no other cause than that the 
Christian religion lived even at that time as redemptive 
truth and redemptive power in the heavenly world and from 
there created for itself an embryonic form of existence in 
the life of Israel. The writer of Hebrews would have 
subscribed to the belief that Christianity is as old as Abra- 
ham and as old as Moses, nay as old as Paradise, because 
it is heaven-born and not the child of earth. 

In a variety of ways the Epistle gives expression to this 
truth. First of all in what it teaches about the Old Testa- 
ment forms of religion as partaking of the nature of 



shadows, cntlai . It is easy to miss the exact meaning of 
this, because it is often too rashly identified with the Pauline 
formula containing the same figure: “which are a shadow 
of the things to come but the body is Christ’s” (Col. i, 17), 
and which yet is quite differently oriented. Paul in thus 
formulating it thinks along the horizontal line of historic 
development : the shadow is the obscure outline which the 
reality approaching through time casts before itself. Hence 
the correlative to the shadow is the body. The author of 
Hebrews on the other hand lets his thought move along 
the perpendicular line that runs from heaven to earth : the 
shadow is a shadow not of something that comes after, but 
of something that lies above; it is not cast before, but re- 
flected down; hence its correlate is not the body, but the 
e’iKoov, the image, by which is meant the celestial prototype. 
According to ch. x, 1 the law has the shadow of the good 
things of the world to come, not the image itself. That 
image the New Covenant possesses; but it existed in the 
presence of God in heaven when He gave the law to Israel, 
and from it the shadow came forth which the law presents. 
True, the Old Testament forms also prefigure what is to 
follow in the line of historic emergence, they are forecasts 
in the Pauline sense, but they are this only because first 
they are reflexes of a heavenly reality which was destined 
at the end of the ages to come down to earth and fill the 
New Covenant. If the painter first draws a sketch from the 
work of art that lives in his inner vision, and then projects 
the picture from its spiritual form of existence into the 
form of canvas and color, the sketch will be a prophecy 
of the finished painting, precisely because it was a shadow 
of the picture in concept. In a somewhat similar sense the 
author of Hebrews means by shadow the sketch which 
God drew on the ceremonial canvas of the law of the eternal 
things that form the object of His vision in the world 
above. In another passage (viii. 5) this is said in so many 
words. Here we read that the Old Testament priests serve 
that which is a copy and a shadow (viroSeiyua /cal a/cia) of 



the heavenly things. The term “copy” explains the term 
“shadow” and both are equally related to a celestial reality. 
But perhaps even more strikingly the author’s way of think- 
ing in this respect reveals itself in the peculiar use he makes 
of the ideas of type and antitype. He follows in this mat- 
ter a terminology which is apt to be confusing to the ordi- 
nary reader, because it apparently is the opposite of that 
usually combined with these words. We say, as a rule, that 
the Old Covenant has the type, the New Covenant the anti- 
type. And this is Scriptural ; for the Apostle Peter so con- 
ceives of it when he represents the water of the deluge as the 
type, the water of baptism as the antitype (i Pet. iii. 21). 
And yet the author of Hebrews distinctly tells us (ix. 24) 
that the Old Testament tabernacle was the antitype, not the 
type. The explanation is very simple. It lies in this, that 
antitype means copy, that which is fashioned after the type, 
and the Old Testament tabernacle was copied, fashioned af- 
ter the tabernacle in heaven. Likewise the author also finds 
it significant that Moses was shown a type, a model of the 
sanctuary on the Mount, (viii. 50 cpr. with Ex. xxv. 40.) 
And all the Old Testament things in general are in this 
sense called copies of the things in the heavens (ix. 23). 

Still another means of tracing the author’s view of the 
relation between the heavenly world and the make-up of 
the Old Testament religion is afforded in the peculiar mean- 
ing he attaches to the predicate akriOivos, translated in the 
English versions by “true”, but more adequately rendered 
by “veritable”. This is a predicate reserved for the things 
in heaven because, in contrast to the shadows of the Old 
Covenant, they constitute the solid reality, the veritable 
substance. In this characteristic use of the word cl\t)6lv6<; 
Hebrews coincides, with the Fourth Gospel. There the 
Evangelist speaks of the Logos as “the true light” and our 
Lord calls Himself “the true vine”, “the true bread”, and 
defines the latter as “the bread that comes down out of 
heaven, the bread of God” (vi. 33). And even more closely 
approaching the view-point of Hebrews is the contrast 


drawn in the prologue between the law given through 
Moses, and the grace and truth which came through Jesus 
Christ, for here, it will be observed, the Christian revelation 
is characterized as “truth” in distinction from the Mosaic 
law to which this predicate does not belong. The meaning 
is not, of course, that the Mosaic law is untrue or false in 
the ordinary sense of the word; in fact this misunderstand- 
ing is carefully guarded against by the form of statement 
employed: the law was given “through” Moses, which im- 
plies that Moses in the lawgiving was only the instrument 
of God, from whom nothing false or untrue can come. 
“Truth” here means what it means in Hebrews; it expresses 
the heavenly character of the Christian realities of revela- 
tion and redemption in which the higher world directly 
communicates itself, and the opposite of “the true” is the 
typical, wherein the connection witih the heavenly world is 
present only in a mediated, shadowy form. And Jesus, 
because He is the center and exponent of this great pro- 
jection of the supernatural into the lower world is called 
“the Truth”. In the well-known answer to Thomas con- 
cerning the way to the place whither Jesus is going, our 
Saviour declares that He Himself personally is the way. 
His way is into heaven, and through identification with Him 
the disciples can reach the same goal. But our Lord further 
explains this fact, that the way to heaven lies through Him, 
from His being “the truth”, and “the life”, which means 
nothing else than that the veritable higher world has come 
down in Him, and that particularly the heavenly life has 
made its appearance on earth in His Person. All this is 
but the statement in a more general form of what the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews affirms with specific reference to 'the 
sphere of priesthood and sacrifice. 

A couple of very instructive examples of the twofold re- 
lation in which the Epistle places the things of the Old Cove- 
nant as on the one hand looking upward to the world of 
heaven, on the other hand looking forward to the New 
Covenant, may be found in what it teaches about the figure 



of Melchizedek and about the conception of the promised 
rest. In the historical sequence of things Christ is said to 
be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Here we have 
the ordinary correspondence between type and antitype, the 
former pertaining to the Old the latter to the New Cove- 
nant. To Melchizedek belongs the first, to Christ the later 
appearance on the scene of history. But in the third verse of 
the eighth chapter the author reverses this relation, repre- 
senting it in this way, that not Christ was made like unto 
Melchizedek, but, on the contrary, Melchizedek was made 
like unto the Son of God. The introduction of the name 
“Son of God” here is highly significant. It describes Christ 
in His divine, eternal nature. From this eternal life that 
places the Son of God above all time and history, the 
eternity-character enveloping Melchidezek in the record of 
Genesis was copied, that thus delineated he might again in 
the time-perspective of history prefigure the historic Christ. 
The same observation may be made with regard to the 
“rest” promised the people of God. The rest of the land 
of Canaan given to Israel of old was a type of the supreme 
rest opened up by Jesus in the New Covenant. But this rest 
of Canaan was by no means the first or original embodi- 
ment of the religious idea of rest. Back of it and above it 
lay in the heavenly world the “sabbatismos” of God spoken 
of in the account of creation, and which is identical with 
the Christian rest, since believers are received by God into 
the rest that is His own. Generalizing this we may say 
that according to the teaching of the Epistle the Old Testa- 
ment things are both copies and copied from, and the latter 
because they are the former. 

It needs, after what has been said, no lengthy demonstra- 
tion to show that Hebrews vindicates by this philosophy of 
history in the most satisfactory manner the identity and 
continuity of the Old Covenant with the New. Still it is not 
a work of supererogation to call attention to this. The con- 
crete purpose for which the Epistle was written gave oc- 
casion for placing great emphasis on the superiority of the 


New Covenant to the Old. And this undoubtedly is also the 
proximate purpose in the mind of the author when he form- 
ulates that . antithesis : there the shadow, here the image 
itself. But the antithesis would be overdrawn and the auth- 
or’s mark overshot if we were to interpret this as mean- 
ing: the old has only the shadow of the new. As we now 
know, the author’s real intent is this : the old has only the 
shadow of heaven, the new has the full reality of heaven. 
And therefore to do the author full justice the stress should 
not be laid exclusively on the statement that there is “only” 
a shadow, but equally on the fact that there “is” a shadow of 
the true things of religion under the Old Covenant. The 
word in the prophets cannot take the place of the word in 
the Son, but it is a word in which God spoke. The sacri- 
fices and lustrations could not do the work for which alone 
the priestly work of Christ is adequate, but they were in 
their own sphere faithful adumbrations and true means of 
grace, through which a real contact with the living God 
was actually maintained. When again and again, in pur- 
suance of the immediate end in view, the author declares 
their weakness and unprofitableness (vii. 18), this is meant 
comparatively, but is not intended to void them of all re- 
ligious efficacy. If taken in an absolute sense, such state- 
ments would warrant the inference that the Old Covenant 
had no spiritual substance at all, that the saints of old 
moved wholly among shadows, for which no body was yet 
in existence. This would be the same erroneous impression 
that is sometimes derived in an even stronger degree from 
the Pauline statements in which the Apostle speaks of the 
religious life under the law, statements which seem to allow 
nothing for this life in the way of positive spiritual privi- 
lege and enjoyment, and dwell only on the condemnatory, 
cursing, slaying function of the law. And yet we know 
from Paul that he was well-acquainted not only with the 
objective foreshadowing which the facts of the Christian 
redemption had found in the Old Covenant but also with the 
subjective prelibations which had been tasted by the saints 



of those days. And so it is in Hebrews. With whatever 
degree of clearness or dimness they might themselves ap- 
prehend the fact, God stood in spiritual relations to the 
people of Israel, they were not cut off from the fount of 
life and blessedness. Through the shadows and ceremonies 
and all the instrumentalities of the flesh, God controlled 
with a sure and sovereign hand the religious destinies of 
each member of His covenant people. Not only under the 
influence of special inspiration were a David and other 
Psalmists or a Jeremiah enabled to take to themselves 
prophetic draughts of the waters of life, which their vision 
saw springing up in the coming age, there was a direct 
and contemporaneous interaction between the redemptive 
approaches of God in the religious forms of that day and 
the believing and unbelieving responses with which they 
were met on the part of man. Instructive in this respect 
is the description given by the author of the dealings of 
God with the people during the wilderness journey and 
the people’s attitude during that journey to the rest that 
had been promised. So far as the form was concerned, 
this promise had come to them only through the medium 
of the adpl; ; it was enveloped in the prospect of the 
inheritance of the land of Canaan that God had held 
out from of old and renewed at the time of their redemption 
from Egypt. And yet it is clearly the author’s conviction 
that far deeper and more tremendous issues were decided 
on that occasion with reference to each of the participants 
in the history than the mere question, who of them would 
survive to enter the promised land. Through the shadowy 
forms, in the midst of which the actors moved, a great 
drama of belief and unbelief was enacted, the outcome of 
which was by God reckoned decisive in the eternal sphere. 
It was not only from the typical but from the everlasting 
rest that the unbelievers were excluded, when God swore 
that fearful oath that they should not enter in. And those 
who believed were then and there given the right of en- 
trance into all that the divine rest did mean and would come 


to mean in the future. The author is so vividly impressed 
with this that he does not content himself with comparing 
this Old Testament method of procedure with the method 
now pursued under the new dispensation but approaches 
the comparison from the opposite end. He does not say: 
they as well as we, but we as well as they have had an 
evangel preached unto us, whence also he is able to hold 
up the unbelief of the Israelites as a warning example to 
the readers of his own day. No more striking proof than 
this could be afforded of the fact, that he regarded the same 
spiritual world with the same powers and blessings as hav- 
ing evoked the religious experience of the Old and the New 
Testament alike. 

Having thus traced the influence of the idea of the cove- 
nant on the Epistle’s view of revelation, we next enquire 
whether the same influence can be discovered within the 
other hemisphere of teaching, that relating to the priest- 
hood and sacrifice of Christ. The author consciously co- 
ordinates this with the doctrine of Jesus’ revealing func- 
tion : these two taken together constitute for him the full 
orb of the official significance of our Lord. He calls Christ 
“the apostle and high-priest of our confession” (iv. i). 
The two terms are subsumed under one article so as to 
bring out their intimate coherence. Moreover in this their 
conjunction they are made the substance of the Christian 
confession, which presupposes alike their fundamental and 
comprehensive character. Finally, the readers are invited 
to consider Him in this twofold capacity, and this means 
that not merely in objective doctrinal presentation but in 
the practical experience of what Jesus is and does for them 
these two categories stand out prominently before their 

This precludes our regarding the idea of the priesthood 
of Christ in the light of a novelty first conceived by the 
author of the Epistle. It must have been familiar to the 
readers; and this appears from the fact that they are 
charged with a lack of proficiency in Christian understand- 



ing because of their failure to perceive the significance of 
Melchizedek in his typical relation to the priesthood of 
Christ. And yet, what seems to have been familiar in the 
circle to which the Epistle addresses itself does not appear 
with the same sharp delineation anywhere else in the New 
Testament. No doubt the substance of the teaching em- 
bodied in it was common Christian property ; only this sub- 
stance seems nowhere to have taken the form that Christ 
is and acts as a priest. Leaving out of account the well- 
known passage in the Apocalypse, in which certain parts 
of the high-priestly apparel are introduced into the descrip- 
tion of the glorified Christ, there is no New Testament state- 
ment outside of Hebrews which explicitly calls Jesus a 
priest. Since, therefore, much that is subsumed under the 
priesthood of Christ in Hebrews is likewise present in the 
other writings, and yet has not there resulted in investing 
Him with the office of a priest, it clearly follows that there 
must have existed in the minds of our author a specific rea- 
son for expressing in terms of priesthood what could be 
expressed and was commonly expressed without the use of 
this title. Besides the common conception of the Saviour’s 
sacrificial, expiatory work there must have been a peculiar 
point of view, an original turn given to the old established 
belief, a certain plus in the apprehension of Jesus’ saving 
significance, and to this it must be due, that the idea of 
priesthood comes to the front. This peculiar element we 
must endeavor to discover, and in it, if we mistake not, 
will be seen the mutual adjustment between the covenantal 
aspect of religion and the Saviour’s priestly office. 

It will be best to proceed analytically, i.e., by resolving 
the conception of priesthood into its constituent elements. 
The Epistle makes this easy for us by the degree of reflex- 
ion almost approaching to definition which in one passage 
it expends upon the idea (v. i ff). The first element enter- 
ing into the office is that of “representation of man with 
God” : “Every high priest ... is appointed for men in 

things pertaining to God”. The movement of the priestly 



function is in a direction opposite to that of the prophetic 
function. The prophet officiates from God to man, the priest 
officiates from man to God, represents man with God. This 
at least is, broadly speaking, the case, although there are 
some aspects of the priestly task in which, after the culmin- 
ation of its God-ward movement, it turns back, as it were, 
upon itself and conveys from God to man such things as 
the priestly benediction, forgiveness and help. In the main, 
however, the Epistle remains true to its own definition: 
the priest takes care for man of the things pertaining to 

Closely connected with this is the second requisite 
of the office which we may define as “solidarity” with those 
represented. Here again the priesthood differs from the 
prophetic office. We have already seen how strongly the 
Epistle, in describing Christ’s revealing function, emphasizes 
His eternal sonship, His divine nature. It is different where 
His priestly work is concerned. Here He represents man, 
and His qualification is measured by His nearness to man. 
The author, therefore, does not fail to include this in the 
definition: Every high priest, “being taken from among 

men”, is appointed for men. The work is of such a kind 
that it cannot be performed by any one who stands outside 
of the circle he is called upon to represent. Angels can 
serve as revealing organs, ministering servants, but they 
are not qualified for acting in the priesthood. It is of im- 
portance to notice this point, because in Judaism the tend- 
ency to interpose angelic beings between God and man from 
fear that a direct contact with the creature would injure 
the divine majesty, showed its influence not merely upon the 
manward movement of revelation but likewise in the God- 
ward movement of the priesthood, as when the archangel 
Michael is represented as officiating at the altar in the 
heavenly sanctuary. Over against such a view Hebrews 
insists upon it, that there must exist antecedent solidarity 
between the priest and the people. And the author con- 
ceives of this solidarity on deeper lines than is commonly 



appreciated. It is customary to say that he insists upon 
the possession by Christ of our human nature as essential 
to His priestly representation of us. But this is not saying 
enough. The line of reasoning followed in the second 
chapter shows plainly that the solidarity lies back of this, 
that the assumption of human nature through the incar- 
nation is not its basis but only a form in which the principle 
asserts itself. When we are told that “both he that sancti- 
fies and they that are being sanctified are all of one” 
(ii. n), it would be a mistake to interpret this phrase “of 
one” of the common descent of Christ with us from Adam 
or Abraham. That something else is meant the working 
out of the idea in the sequel convincingly shows. For the 
author proceeds to prove the fact of this solidarity from 
the observation that Christ calls believers His spiritual 
brethren, and that He resembles them by assuming the same 
trustful attitude towards God which marks them as children 
of God, nay that He Himself sustains to them the relation 
of a father to his children. All this lies in the spiritual 
sphere and while, in its concrete form, not possible without 
the incarnation, is not in principle caused by it. On 
the contrary the author represents the incarnation as the 
further carrying out of a spiritual solidarity already given : 
“Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, He 
also Himself in like manner partook of the same” (ii. 14). 
The joint-sonship of Christ with believers does not follow 
from the incarnation, it produces the incarnation: because 
those with whom He was spiritually identified, those whom 
He resembled in sonship, partook of flesh and blood, He 
carried His solidarity with them to the point of the assump- 
tion of their nature. It is obvious that the root of the iden- 
tification of Christ with us which underlies His priesthood 
is sought in His standing before God, in the divine appoint- 
ment by which His destiny and the destiny of the people 
of God were forever united. It is what the old theology 
used to call the federal oneness of Christ with believers 
that is here taught. That this idea is actually in the writer’s 



mind follows from one striking feature in the representa- 
tion which is often overlooked. Believers are not merely 
called joint-children of God with Christ, but are called 
“children of Christ”. The writer puts upon the lips of 
Jesus the Isaianic utterance: “Behold I and the children 

whom God has given me” (ii. 13) and joins to this the 
affirmation that, because the children, i.e. Christ’s children, 
were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself in like 
manner partook of the same. They were His children be- 
cause back of all temporal developments in either His birth 
or their birth, they had been given to Him of the Father. 
He stands not only in general solidarity with them, but in 
that specific form of solidarity which constitutes Him the 
Father and them the children — a representation which, is 
unique in the New Testament, where believers are else- 
where called the children of God and not the children of 

While thus resting on a federal basis and carrying with 
itself the incarnation, the solidarity extends to the further 
concrete aspects of the human life of Christ. “It behooved 
Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren” (ii. 
17). In these words the author for the first time touches 
upon the subject which later is repeatedly reverted to: the 
identification of Christ with us in the common experiences 
of human life, especially in those common experiences that 
belong to the sphere of weakness, suffering and temptation. 
It is a favorite motif of the modern theology, to find in this 
a sign of reaction from the increasing deification of Christ 
in the early church with its tendency to dehumanize Him 
and to bury the historic Jesus under the rank growth of my- 
thology and speculation. Hebrews is then given the credit, 
together with the Synoptic Gospels, of having rescued for 
us the human Christ from the danger of entire obliteration. 
This rests on a misapprehension of the facts. So far as 
the intent of Hebrews is concerned, the feature in question 
certainly has nothing to do with the desire to do justice to 
the humanity of Christ for its own sake. The motive is 



a strictly doctrinal one; it is for the sake of the Saviour’s 
priesthood, as a functional necessity, that His solidarity 
with believers in nature and experience is emphasized : “It 
behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His 
brethren” to the end “that He might be a merciful and 
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
propitiation for the sins of the people” (ii. 17). 

The third element entering into the priestly function is 
that of “offering”. This also the author includes in the 
definition: “Every high priest being taken from among 

men is appointed for man in things pertaining to God, that 
He may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” In connec- 
tion with the term “sacrifice” we are inclined to think too 
narrowly of the slaying of the victim. To do so leaves 
out of account an act of co-equal if not of greater import- 
ance in the ritual. For this reason it is better to avail our- 
selves, as the author throughout does, of the verb “to offer” 
which, owing to the peculiar point of view from which it 
regards the transaction, is precisely adapted to call to mind 
that which follows the death of the sacrifice. Where the 
author refers to the offering of Christ, he by no means re- 
stricts the range of this act to what happened on Calvary; 
to his view the offering was not finished there ; its culmin- 
ating stage lay in the self-presentation of Christ or in the 
presentation of His blood, as it is variously expressed, be- 
fore God in heaven. Sometimes he even refers to this lat- 
ter act, not as a part or the climax of the offering, but as 
“the offering” par excellence. And what is true of the 
offering is true of the “expiation”. This also is not con- 
fined to the cross: Christ expiates in heaven as well as on 
Calvary. Evidently the process as a whole is covered by 
the terms, which consequently can be applied to each half 
of it, yet so that the second stage more clearly brings out 
its real significance and throws back its light upon the first. 
The death of Jesus, no less than His appearance in heaven, 
the Epistle places under the aspect of an offering, a move- 
ment of self-presentation to God : there is a continuous 


approach realizing itself in two steps. At this point the 
ritual conception of Hebrews differs from that of the Old 
Testament law. In the law the slaying of the animal is 
not the act of the priest, but of the man who brings the 
sacrifice for himself. The two acts of the offering, that 
of the slaying of the victim, and that of the presentation of 
the blood, here fall to two different persons, the former to 
the bringer of the sacrifice, the latter to the priest. In 
Hebrews, on the other hand, the priest performs both. Nor 
is this an insignificant variation from the Old Testament 
rule made necessary by the fact that no distinct person, 
apart from Christ, existed who could act in the capacity of 
the giver of the sacrifice. For the whole trend of the 
Epistle’s teaching, which is towards laying the scene of 
Christ’s priestly function in heaven, would naturally have 
predisposed the author for representing Him in connection 
with His death on earth, not as a priest, but merely as a 
sacrifice. When notwithstanding this, as we shall see, he 
insists upon it that Jesus officiated as priest at His own 
death, there must be a positive reason for this. Two mo- 
tives probably codperated towards leading his mind in this 
direction. In the first place, the close identification of 
Christ with the people on whose behalf the offering is 
brought made it appear natural that He should act as their 
representative at this point also. He is not merely priest 
and victim in one, but also plays the part of the Old Testa- 
ment giver; through Him the people of God bring to the 
altar the required gift that is to make covering for their sin. 
He represents us both in dying and in offering Himself to 
die. And, in the second place, the ministry of Christ as 
priest at His own death helps to bring out a principle con- 
sidered by the author of the Epistle as of the highest im- 
portance, this principle viz., that the surrender of Christ 
to death was a spiritual, voluntary one. While ascribing 
real efficacy to the death of Jesus, the Epistle does not 
attribute this to the death as a mere passive, physical ex- 
perience. The blood, the death were necessary, but as bare 



physical things they were not enough; they derive their 
ultimate value from the concomitant psychical state. What 
renders the death effectual is precisely that which distin- 
guishes it from the death of the Old Testament sacrifices, 
which was a purely passive and physical experience. It was 
impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take 
away sins (x. 4) and therefore a different sacrifice had to 
be provided; for the death suffered without a will, there is 
substituted the death of Christ, which was the doing of the 
will of God by the will of the sacrifice: “Sacrifice and offer- 
ing thou wouldst not ; a body didst thou prepare for me ; . . . 
then said I, lo, I am come to do thy will, O God”. “By 
that will we have been sanctified through the self-presenta- 
tion (7rpoacf>opd verse 10) of the body of Jesus Christ once 
for all.” In ix. 13, 14 also the blood of goats and bulls and 
the blood of Christ are put in contrast from the same point 
of view. The one operates in the sphere of the flesh, be- 
cause it is an offering of flesh, the other cleanses the con- 
science, because it is an offering of Spirit. Hence also there 
is a further difference in the necessity of their respective op- 
erations : the argument is a fortiori : “how much more shall 
the blood of Christ cleanse your consciences”. The animal 
offerings under the old covenant cleansed even the flesh 
not so much through any inherent necessity, but in result 
of a sovereign appointment of God. It is different with 
the sacrifice of Christ: His blood operates in the sphere of 
the conscience, not merely because God sovereignly ap- 
points for it such an effect, or condescends to attribute to it 
such value, but because in the eternal nature and constitu- 
tion of things such effect and value are inseparably con- 
nected with it. The offering of Christ is an alcoviov be- 
cause it brought to God eternal Spirit, a sacrifice of self, 
brought by a divine Person, who as such alone has the 
absolute right to dispose of Himself, because He is abso- 
lutely His own. Now it seems that in order to give em- 
phasis to this important train of thought the author joins 
to the passion of Christ as an offering the action of Christ 


as a priest. It is as priest that He represents the spiritual, 
voluntary, spontaneous side of the transaction. It is as 
priest that He carries into the sacrifice that inward God- 
seeking and God-reaching movement which from the be- 
ginning makes it a true gift to the Father. It is a striking 
confirmation of this that in the passage last quoted the 
author does not say : Christ offered Himself “as” eternal 
Spirit, as in the context it might have been expected, but 
“through” eternal Spirit He offered Himself. It is not 
only what was offered, but through what it was offered 
that determined the efficacy. And precisely this category 
of “throughness” is represented by the priesthood. 

The offering of Jesus is specifically connected with the 
fact of sin, as the author’s definition again takes pains to 
remind us : “Every high priest being taken from among 

men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, 
that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins”. In this 
statement, it is true, the offering of “gifts” and the offering 
of “sacrifices for sins” are distinguished, and from this it 
has been inferred, that there is a side to the priestly func- 
tion that has no connection with sin. This inference is 
unwarranted. The only thing that the distributive form 
of the statement implies is that not all priestly offerings are 
sin-offerings, that is, offerings for the direct and main pur- 
pose of expiation. Besides these there are “gifts” intended 
for consecration. But that does not prove the coming of 
these gifts of consecration through a priest, to be the nor- 
mal thing, so that even in a sinless state a priesthood would 
be required to offer the gifts of consecration to God. That 
a man cannot in his own person bring even his gift of 
consecration to the altar is due to no other cause than his 
sinfulness. The defilement of sin not merely requires ex- 
piation; it also precludes personal approach of whatever 
kind to God. The definition, therefore, means nothing else 
than that the priest exists for offering gifts to God on 
account of the fact of sin, and sacrifices to God for the 
expiation of sin. It is, of course, in the abstract quite 


possible to conceive of a representative head of unfallen 
humanity furnishing the point of contact between the race 
and God, gathering up in Himself the united concerns of 
men with God, voicing their religious approach to God in 
its various forms of expression. Serious doubt, however, 
may be felt as to whether the ideal relation of man to God 
in a sinless state ought not to be so direct and immediate 
as to forbid the interposition of a priest between him and 
God. The representative position of Adam furnishes no 
true analogy, for here no religious approach to God on be- 
half of others is involved, as would be in the case of the 
priesthood. The difficulty might perhaps be met by con- 
ceiving of the Son of God as the hypothetical incumbent of 
this unsoteric priesthood in the state of rectitude; for the 
Son of God, as partaking of the divine nature, would not by 
His priesthood interfere with the immediacy of contact 
with God. We ought to realize, however, that, on the 
premises of the Epistle, such a construction would carry 
with itself the belief in the incarnation of Christ as con- 
templated in the normal order of the universe irrespective 
of the entrance of sin; for the Epistle, as we have seen, 
insists upon it, that a priest on behalf of mankind must par- 
take of the nature of mankind. Consequently in the form 
which this theory of a hypothetical priesthood under a 
sinless regime has assumed, that advocated by Westcott, 
the incarnation of the Son of God is actually represented 
as in its ultimate analysis not contingent upon sin. Sin 
and redemption are a mere intervening episode in a scheme 
of things which made provision for a priesthood of the Son 
of God under all circumstances. 

We need not pursue this line of speculation any further. 
It suffices to observe, that, if it lay at all in the mind of 
the writer, which cannot be disproven, it has left no trace 
upon the actual teaching of the Epistle. The priesthood of 
Christ is everywhere explained soteriologically. The very 
emphasis placed upon the sinlessness of Jesus as an in- 
dispensable qualification for the office indicates that His 


priesthood serves to accomplish something for sinners which 
sinners cannot accomplish for themselves. The difference 
between the Epistle and Philo lies precisely in this that the 
latter invests his Logos with a priestly function that is 
absolutely devoid of the expiatory element, whereas in He- 
brews everything is staked on the thought of expiation. 
Close upon the definition of the priest in v. i follows the 
statement that he has to deal with the ignorant and erring, 
so that in the case of the Old Testament typical incumbent 
of the office his own sinfulness even became a helpful fea- 
ture because, being compassed himself with infirmity and 
having to offer for his own sins no less than for the sin of 
the people, he was able to have a medium pathos ( ^er pio- 
iraOelv), as the Epistle strikingly expresses it, that is to bear 
gently, to have patience with the failings of those whom 
he represented. In ii. 17 “the things pertaining to God” 
are likewise more clearly defined by the following clause 
“to make propitiation for the sins of the people”. And even 
where the unending duration of the Saviour’s priesthood, as 
typified by Melchizedek, is dwelt upon, and where conse- 
quently the eternal perspective might most easily have sug- 
gested to the author the final surmounting of every thought 
of sin and redemption, this result does not follow, but the 
writer continues to speak in soteriological terms no less 
than in the other contexts relating more specifically to 
Christ’s priestly work for the present. The effect of the 
eternal, unchangeable Melchizedek-priesthood is said to 
consist in this that He can save to the uttermost (i.e. either 
to the utmost point of time or to the utmost degree) by 
making everlasting intercession. By entering into the 
heavenly holy place, which is the central act of His priestly 
work, He obtained eternal redemption. The redemption 
also is an aiwviov . Over the entire eternal world, so far 
as the author’s vision extends, redemption spreads its wings 
not as a dark shadow, but as a glorious consciousness capa- 
ble of being perpetuated, because from it the pain of sin is 
forever removed by the superabundant expiation. The 
saints above breathe forever the atmosphere of grace. 



As a matter of fact, where the Epistle means to con- 
template the Saviour’s eternal significance, under a not- 
specifically redemptive aspect, but from the point of view 
of a carrying into effect of the original destiny of creation, 
the author avails himself for this purpose of another con- 
ception than that of the priesthood. In such connections 
he represents the Son as the “Heir” of all things. As the 
world was made through Him, so the world was made for 
His inheritance. This corresponds strictly to Paul’s teach- 
ing that Christ is the goal of creation. To Him the in- 
habited earth that is to come ( ohcov^ev 77 fieWovaa, ii. 5) 
has been made subject. To be sure, in the historical out- 
come of the world-process, this also has been fulfilled in a 
form which is not independent of sin and redemption, be- 
cause it has been realized through the incarnate Christ, and 
as a crowning reward for the suffering of death. But from 
the concrete, actual form of fulfilment we can here dis- 
tinguish the general possibility of the inheritance of the 
world as such which, had no sin entered, would not have 
required the incarnation of the Son of God and might 
have been a glorious eternal reality. To be priest over the 
race the Son would have to be incarnate; the sovereignty 
over the eschatological world He could have received, if 
the element of sin be discounted, without the assumption 
of our human nature. 

The next element to be taken into account in the analysis 
of the conception of priesthood is that of “leadership and 
participation in attainment”. The priest is not one who 
stands personally outside of the movement he directs or 
has no share of his own to realize in the end he serves. His 
close unity with the people and his representative relation 
to them already indicate that the opposite must be true. 
The Epistle emphasizes that the priest himself is the first 
to travel the road and reach the goal to which it is his task 
to bring others. In the definition of the priest that has so 
far guided us this element also is referred to : a priest is 
one who “is bound, as for the people, so also for himself, to 


offer for sins”. It is true, in applying the definition to 
Christ, this particular feature cannot be transferred from the 
Old Testament high priest to Him without restriction. For 
the Aaronic high priest is sinful and therefore in the most 
literal sense and along the whole line of his own ministry 
partakes of the expiating and saving effect of the same. 
Jesus is the sinless One, nay, to the efficacy of His priestly 
work His separateness from sin is absolutely essential. 
None the less the Epistle upholds the general validity of 
the principle also with reference to Christ. Even in the 
case of the Old Testament high priest it was not his sin- 
fulness which occasioned such a participation in the benefits 
of his office : the circumstance of his sinfulness only causes 
a trait that is inherent in the conception of the priesthood 
as such to stand out in clearer relief. The ideal priest, al- 
though not personally involved in sin, and consequently not 
capable of experiencing the cleansing of sin, must, with this 
one exception, share in the result he is set to accomplish. 
The Epistle does not hesitate to ascribe to Jesus, and that 
in His capacity as priest, the experience of salvation : He, 
a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, having of- 
fered up in the days of His flesh prayers and supplications 
with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to 
save Him out of death, was heard for His godly fear, and 
so became the author of salvation unto all that obey Him 
(v. 6-9). The Epistle employs two technical terms to ex- 
press this precession of Christ on the pathway along which 
believers follow Him. The first term is apxvyof occurring 
in two passages, ii. io and xii. 2. In the former Jesus is 
called “the apxvyos of salvation” ; in the latter “the,ap%??Yo'? 
of faith”. The word can denote both the producer of an 
effect and the leader of a line ; hence the twofold rendering 
of “author” and “captain”. The context in each passage 
shows that both elements are represented in the pregnant 
meaning the author puts into the word, and that not by a 
purely external combination, but as resulting the one from 
the other. Jesus does not as an outside person procure 



salvation for the race; by breaking His own way to the 
goal He has carried the others in His wake. And again 
Jesus has not produced faith in us while Himself living 
above the plane and beyond the need of faith ; it is through 
His own perfect exercise of faith that He helps believers . 
to follow in His footsteps. This pregnant meaning of the 
word is also proved by the uses Peter makes of it in two 
passages recorded in Acts (iii. 15; v. 31) where he calls 
Jesus “the 0/3^705 of life” and “an apx 7 ?? 09 and vooTrip”. 
The rendering of the English versions “Prince of Life” 
and “Prince and Saviour”, correctly brings out the thought 
that Jesus to the view of the Apostle through His resur- 
rection was the first inheritor of life and at the same time 
the source of life to His followers. To the translators of the 
Authorized Version at least “prince” admirably rendered 
this, though it scarcely any longer conveys the idea to us, 
because, when that version was made, the etymology of 
prince from princeps, qui principium capit, was still per- 
spicuous. He as a beginner took this life to Himself, and 
then opened it to others. In “Prince and Saviour” the two 
elements are distributed. Jesus is first of all the leader in 
salvation, then the giver of salvation. For the reason 
stated, in Hebrews the rendering “captain of salvation” and 
“captain of faith” is to be preferred to “author of salva- 
tion,” “author of faith,” because the function of a captain 
always suggests a degree of authorship, while the function 
of an author conveys no suggestion of leadership in the 
fruition of what is produced. The second term in which 
the same idea finds expression is even more illuminating for 
our present purpose because more directly connected with 
the Saviour’s priestly work. In vi. 20 the author calls 
Jesus Trpo'S/jo/io? “forerunner” because as the first He has 
entered into that which is within the veil, and through that 
act of first entrance with His own blood has made it pos- 
sible for us now to project our hope as an anchor of the 
soul into the same holy place and hereafter to follow Him 
in person. 


The four ingredients of the conception of priesthood so 
far distinguished are by it naturally and easily held to- 
gether. We cannot, however, assert that for the expres- 
sion of any single one of them, or even of all in their com- 
bination, the priestly formula is absolutely necessary. As a . 
matter of fact we find all these ingredients, sometimes 
singly, sometimes variously combined, in other types of 
teaching, notably in Paul, where yet the formal concept of 
the priesthood of Christ does not emerge with them. That 
Christ’s work has a God-ward reference, that He sustains 
a representative relation to believers, that in His lot both 
in the state of humiliation and in the state of glory He is 
closely identified with His people, that through the volun- 
tary sacrifice of Himself in death He has wrought expiation, 
that as the first heir and participant of the eschatological 
state He leads us in the attainment unto glory — all these 
are characteristic Pauline ideas, and yet, as we have seen, 
the idea of the Saviour’s priesthood does not become ex- 
plicit in Paul. The point we must now notice is that in 
Hebrews all these ideas, while substantially identical with 
the corresponding trains of thought elsewhere, yet possess 
a physiognomy of their own. The cause of this is that in 
the mind of the author of Hebrews they are from the outset 
construed with reference to a very specific idea, the idea 
of approach unto God. It is towards this idea that the 
whole conception of the priesthood gravitates. A priest is 
one who brings his people into the divine presence. From 
this the feature that he is appointed in things pertaining 
to God receives its more concrete interpretation. The God- 
ward reference of his office is not an abstract logical one, 
but that of a real movement of life. That he represents 
man and is identified with man to the extent of assuming 
human nature looks towards the same end. It is true, this 
was also necessary for and is explained by the Epistle from 
the vicarious death of Jesus : He partook of flesh and blood 
that through death He might bring to naught him that had 
the power of death, and God prepared Him a body that He 



might fulfill the divine will through suffering (ii. 14; x. 5). 
Still, the human nature of Jesus obtains its highest and final 
use in this that through it we are brought representatively 
into the presence of God: Christ entered into heaven to 
appear before the face of God for us (ix. 24). That He 
offers gifts and sacrifices for sins is in the last analysis 
directed towards the end that by the expiation all obstacles 
may be removed which prevent the sinner’s access unto 
God. Finally that Jesus Himself shares in the outcome of 
His priestly ministry is fully accounted for by the fact that 
the sole purpose of this ministry is to come near unto God. 
Thus of the several elements into which the conception re- 
solves itself all are seen to tend in the same direction and 
to propel each other with commulative force to the point 
where they reach their highest functional fulfilment in the 
priestly introduction of man into the immediate presence 
of God. 

The correctness of the view taken may be verified by 
observing how it throws light on some outstanding features 
of the Epistle of which no very satisfactory explanation 
can otherwise be furnished. Two of these may here be 
briefly commented upon. The first has to do with the re- 
lative absence of a theory of atonement. In a writing 
which makes the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus the center 
of its theme, one is a priori inclined to expect such a theory. 
On the whole the expectation is disappointed. Paul, with 
whom the sacrificial aspect of the death of Christ occupies 
a comparatively subordinate place, nevertheless offers far 
more in the line of a philosophy of sacrifice than the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. Various views have been taken of this 
surprising phenomenon. Some endeavor to deny its reality. 
They say: the author of Hebrews theorizes as much about 
the death of Christ as Paul does, only he does so in a dif- 
ferent way and with different results. According to them 
the whole forensic frame of mind that underlies the Pauline 
soteriology is foreign to him. Paul looks upon sin as trans- 
gression, unrighteousness, entailing the curse of the law, 


and therefore as requiring penal suffering of a vicarious 
nature in order to expiation. The author of Hebrews looks 
upon sin as defilement, entailing exclusion from the presence 
of God and therefore as requiring lustration, cleansing. 
There is, as we shall see, a grain of truth in this form of 
statement, so far as the contrasted definition of the end of 
the atonement is concerned. But, when it offers itself as an 
exact reproduction of two contrasted theories as to the 
rationale of the process of atonement, it is utterly mislead- 
ing. To impute to the author of Hebrews the view that 
sin is defilement which needs washing and that this is pro- 
vided by the blood of Christ, is not to furnish him with a 
theory, that could be set over against the clean-cut doc- 
trinal deliverances of Paul on the subject. The language 
of defilement and of lustration is figurative, symbolical lan- 
guage obviously borrowed from the Old Testament cere- 
monial law. But for this very reason it cannot take the 
place of a theory. When one wishes to explain on a theo- 
retical basis how it is that the blood of Christ washes away 
sin, he has to reduce the physical figure to moral, spiritual 
factors; not the symbolism itself but only its spiritual 
counterpart is something that can be fairly placed by the 
side of the Pauline doctrine with a view to formulating a 
judgment on the agreement or disagreement of the two. 
To compare “washing” and “satisfaction”, is as hopeless a 
procedure as to discuss the relative merits of baptism and 
regeneration as two distinct theories. Setting then this 
confusion of thought aside, we find that only two attempts 
have been made and can be made to make the symbolism 
truly commensurable with any other theory of atonement. 
The one lies in the direction of ritualism, the other in the 
direction of subjectivism. As to the former, it has been 
represented that the author was fully satisfied with the 
ritual transactions as such, that being impervious to their 
symbolic character he did not look for any deeper reason 
of their efficacy than the bare fact of their institution by 
God. That blood cleanses would, on this view, be a mystery 


of hieratic magic, and it would be quite legitimate to appeal 
to this as clear proof of the dependence of the teaching of 
the Epistle on the contemporaneous mystery-religions. A 
moment’s reflection shows how utterly untenable this stand- 
point is. The whole trend of Hebrews is away from ritual-- 
ism and in the direction of spiritualizing. It is altogether 
incredible that a mind like the writer’s should on this one 
point, in flagrant inconsistency with its own genius as shown 
at every other point, have been satisfied with the blind fact 
of the shedding of blood without feeling the need of enquiry 
into its spiritual significance. It is true, the author reduces 
the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ to the will of God. 
According to x. 5, 7, 10 the Messiah received a body that 
He might be able to offer it up in death and thus fulfill the 
will of God relative to His death. And in this will of God, 
carried out by Jesus, lies the cause of our sanctification. 
But it should be noticed that precisely in this context the 
writer takes pains to emphasize the preferential and there- 
fore reasonable character of the will of God in this respect. 
God set the execution of this His will by Christ above the 
carrying out of His will embodied in the Old Testament 
law regarding animal sacrifice. Speaking in the words of 
the Psalmist the Saviour says: “Sacrifice and offering 

Thou wouldest not, but a body didst Thou prepare for me ; 
then said I, Lo, I am come to do thy will, O God. . . . He 
taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." The 
divine will, therefore, was not an arbitrary will, it had a 
reasonable content founded in the principles of the divine 
mind. Elsewhere also attention is called to the God-worthi- 
ness of the procedure of the atonement: there is in it a 
divine irpeivov, an intrinsic suitableness and decorum, it is 
in strict keeping v^ith the nature and position of God as 
God: “For it behooved Him, for whom are all things and 
through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to 
glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through 
sufferings” (ii. 10). Still further, we have already seen 
that the contrast between the relative efficacy of the blood 


of the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant as restricted to 
the sphere of the flesh and the absolute efficacy of the blood 
of Christ as applying to the sphere of the conscience is ex- 
plicitly based on the intrinsic difference between the two 
transactions. The effect of Jesus’ death was determined by 
His nature and attitude in regard to it: it was not then a 
blind act of ritual magic, but spiritualized through and 
through, which is but another way of saying that it stood in 
some intelligible relation to the divine necessities of the case, 
in other words, that objectively at least in the mind of God, 
and probably to the mind of the writer also, a philosophy of 
atonement lay back of the symbolism in which the teaching 
is clothed. 

The other proposal lies in the direction of subjectivism. 
The attempt is made to differentiate between Paul’s teach- 
ing on the death of Christ and that of Hebrews in this way, 
that the former puts the effect in the objective sphere of 
satisfaction of the divine justice, whereas the latter finds 
the effect within the heart and mind of man. The symbol- 
ism of defilement and cleansing would then find its spiritual 
counterpart in the moral change produced in man’s sub- 
jective state. Some of the forms of statement employed 
by the Epistle with reference to the blood of Christ might, 
when interpreted according to the modern sound of the 
words, seem to favor this, as when the blood is said to 
purify and to sanctify and to render perfect. But no sooner 
do we bring to bear upon these modes of expression the 
light of strict, contextual exegesis than it is seen that they 
will not possibly bear such a subjectivizing interpretation. 
It is not the heart in the modern sense, nor the mind and 
will but the conscience, that is, the consciousness of sin, 
which is throughout regarded as the object of the purifying 
and sanctifying and perfecting influence of the death of 
Christ. The subjectivistic appearance of these phrases is 
delusive; in reality they pertain just as much to the ob- 
jective sphere as the most characteristic Pauline phrase- 
ology. A difference in theory with Paul cannot be made 
out along this line. 


What then is the true explanation of the self-restraint 
of the writer in respect to theorizing about the atonement? 
We believe it is simply as follows: The author deems it 
unnecessary to accentuate his theory of the atonement, 
partly because he takes for granted the vicarious theory of 
Paul, and all the time, while using the language of the 
ritual, in the background of his mind silently translates this 
into the terms of Pauline doctrine; but mainly because for 
the present moment he is far more interested in the out- 
come, the terminal point of the atoning process, than in its 
intrinsic operation. Looking at the atonement as a priestly 
ministry, the Epistle singles out for emphasis that aspect 
of it, in regard to which the priest is most in evidence. Not 
what the atonement is, but how Christ the priest makes it 
serve the supreme object of His office, this is the focus 
to which all the rays of light in the author’s presentation of 
the subject are directed. And this explains not merely the 
negative feature of the relative absence of a theory; it 
also explains the peculiar terms in which the effect of 
the death of Christ is positively spoken of. For the terms 
above named “to purify”, “to sanctify”, “to render perfect”, 
have this peculiarity that they all describe the death of 
Christ as instrumental in fitting the believer for that very 
thing to which it is the function of the priest to lead him. 
He is purified, that as being pure He may enter into the 
presence of God. He is sanctified, that in being holy he 
may live out his dedication to God. He is made perfect, 
that as being thoroughly equipped he may meet all the 
demands which the service of God imposes on him. In a 
word, the conception of the atonement is here subordinated 
to that of the purpose of the priesthood and viewed almost 
exclusively in relation to it. 

This cannot be taken to prove, however, that the author 
in every connection lacked all interest in the working out 
of a theory of the reasonableness of the death of Christ. 
Every indication goes to show that he knew and cordially 
accepted the teaching of Paul in respect to this. In ix. 12 



we read of eternal redemption as having been obtained 
by the Saviour’s offering; and redemption is an idea be- 
longing to the vicarious train of thought. This redemp- 
tion is further defined as a redemption away from the 
transgressions committed under the first covenant, the im- 
plication being that these transgressions, personified, held 
the Old Testament saints in bondage until they were ran- 
somed from that bondage by the death of the Saviour. 
And in the twenty-eighth verse of the same chapter we 
meet with the most explicit substitutionary language : 
Christ was offered up to bear, that is, to take upon Himself, 
the sins of many, and shall appear a second time, apart from 
sin. This is language borrowed from Isa. liii. 12 and it is 
almost identical with the statement borrowed by Peter from 
the same source (1 Pet. ii. 24) “who His own self carried 
our sins in His body upon the tree”, with this difference 
only, that by the local turn here given to the phrase in con- 
nection with the cross, the vicarious assumption of the sin 
of believers by Christ is more realistically brought out. The 
idea of substitution also clearly shines through in what is 
said about the purpose of our Lord’s incarnation in ii. 14. 
He partook of flesh and blood that He might be able to 
die, for it was through death only that death could be 
overcome. All these incidental modes of statement show 
that the author was quite familiar and in thorough sym- 
pathy with this central doctrine of the Pauline teaching. 
He makes no more of it simply because it lies to one side 
of the center of gravity in his conception of the priesthood. 

The second interesting phenomenon in regard to which a 
similar observation may be made concerns the locality to 
which the Epistle assigns the priesthood of Christ. It is 
throughout represented as a priesthood exercised in heaven. 
The days of our Lord’s flesh were the days of His per- 
fecting, that is of His equipment for the office, and this 
equipment included the event of His death, so that the 
actual entrance upon the function lies beyond His earthly 
life and coincides with His entrance into heaven (ii. 17). 



He becomes a high priest for ever after the order of Mel- 
chizedek when He enters within the veil as our forerunner 
(vi. 20). * In accordance with this He is called a minister of 
the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord 
pitched, not man, so that, it would seem, His priesthood 
could have begun only when He entered that heavenly sanc- 
tuary (viii. 2). Even stronger is the statement made in the 
immediate sequel (viii. 4) : “If He were on earth He 

would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who 
offer the gifts according to the law”. The question arises: 
how is all this to be reconciled with the other statements of 
the Epistle according to which Jesus made purification of 
sins before He ascended to the right hand of God (i. 3), 
that in suffering without the gate He sanctified the people 
through His own blood (xiii. 12), that He was manifested 
at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
Himself (ix. 26) ? It cannot be denied that all these acts are 
priestly acts and, insofar as they took place on earth, make 
it hard to understand how the writer can, as unqualifiedly as 
he does, assign the priestly ministry to the sphere of 
heaven. It has been suggested as a solution of this diffi- 
culty, that the author distinguishes between two orders of 
the priesthood in both of which Christ successively offi- 
ciated, first the order of Aaron, next the order of Melchize- 
dek. But nothing that is said in the Epistle really supports 
such a view. It would be impossible to point out in what 
respect the priestly ministry of Jesus connected with His 
death fell short of being a ministry after the order of 
Melchizedek. If, as is necessary, the essence of the latter 
be found in its eternity, then this character cannot be de- 
nied to the offering He made of Himself on Calvary, since 
plainly an everlasting effect is ascribed to it. It was eternal 
in its absoluteness, its spiritual nature, its reference to the 
heavenly world. Even in point of time the predicate of 
endless duration was not lacking to the ministry exercised 
by Jesus on earth. His death afforded no reason for re- 
garding it as terminated or suspended, for in and through 
the death itself it was from the writer’s own point of view 



continued on its uninterrupted course by means of the indis- 
solvable life of the Son of God (vii. 16). In dying and 
in being dead the Son of God remained a priest forever. 
The distinction also violently separates, by assigning to two 
separate orders of priesthood, the two stages of the offering 
which the Epistle conceives of as most intimately and or- 
ganically united, the offering upon the cross and the offer- 
ing before the throne of God in heaven. The latter is 
based on and derives its efficacy from the former; hence 
they must belong to the same ministry : the Melchizedek- 
character could not inhere in the heavenly priesthood, unless 
it were also inherent in the sacrifice of Calvary. Obviously 
then the explanation required must be sought along a dif- 
ferent line. And again we may find it in this, that the 
author determines the sphere to which Christ’s priesthood 
belongs according to his view concerning the location of 
its center of gravity. Since this center of gravity lies in 
the act of bringing near to God, and not in the preparatory 
operations which were necessary for its accomplishment, 
the priesthood must have its true home where the approach 
to God is effected. And this is nowhere else than in the 
heavenly sanctuary. Perhaps the author’s point of view in 
the matter may best be illustrated by a comparison with 
the one office of the Old Testament ritual which has most 
powerfully influenced his conception of our Lord’s priestly 
work. This is the office performed by the high priest on 
the day of atonement, which constituted, as a matter of fact, 
the culmination of the sacrificial system. Now in this 
ministry of the day of atonement, prefiguring to an 
exceptional degree of exactness the high priestly ministry 
of Christ, the center plainly lay in the high priest’s appear- 
ance before the face of Jehovah in the most holy place. 
This and no other act differentiated the task of the high 
priest from that of every other servant of the tabernacle. 
He and he alone could thus come near to God and represen- 
tatively bring the people near. Therefore the place of his 
priesthood was emphatically the holy of holies, not the first 



tabernacle, far less the court. It might have been truly- 
said that he officiated and could officiate nowhere else than 
there, and that if he had had to minister in the other com- 
partments of the tabernacle, he would not have been a 
high priest at all, since ordinary priests and Levites per- 
formed this service leaving nothing distinctive that he could 
have claimed as his own. And yet, in the law of the day of 
atonement it is explicitly prescribed that the high priest 
must with his own hand slay the sacrificial animal in the 
court (Lev. xvi. 15). Of course this was not a menial 
act, which might just as well have been performed by some- 
body else; it was in the strictest sense of the word a high- 
priestly act, though from the nature of the case it could not 
be performed in the high priest’s own specific sanctuary. 
Now it is altogether probable that the author of Hebrews 
looked upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as exactly 
corresponding to this act which by the hand of the high 
priest on the day of atonement took place in the court be- 
fore the altar of burnt-offering. And since this single act 
of the high priest in the court does not prevent the Old 
Testament from assigning him to the holy of holies as the 
one true scene of his ministry, where alone this can de- 
velop its consummate function, so the single act of self- 
offering by Christ on the earthly mountain does not pre- 
vent the author from affirming that His priesthood belongs 
to heaven as the only sphere where it can truly accomplish 
its highest purpose, the bringing of the sacrifice and those 
for whom it is offered near to God. Finally, we must not 
overlook the part which the factor of personality plays in 
the shaping of the environment of the priestly office of 
Christ. This factor in general imparts to our Lord’s priest- 
hood a unique character and power. He carried into His 
office according to the Epistle the eternal resources of the 
Son of God. He was made priest according to the dynamic 
of an indissolvable life. But the same principle would also 
affect the question of the locality of priesthood and of sacri- 
fice. In the New Covenant the heavenly eternal world pro- 
jects itself into this lower sphere. Even of believers it is 



true that they have now come to the heavenly city and 
stand in real connection through faith with the congrega- 
tion above. If this applies to believers in general, how 
much more will it apply to Jesus, who not merely is the cap- 
tain and finisher of faith, but who also, in virtue of His 
divine nature, continued to be part of the celestial order 
of things wherever He might abide in space. What He 
did was determined as to its local appurtenance by what He 
was. He created His own environment. It was within the 
boundaries of His own personality that the sacrifice was 
made. Through eternal Spirit He offered Himself up to 
God, and therefore the acts of His priesthood, though 
spacially taking place on earth, really belonged to the 
sphere of the a’uoviov . Its ideal reference was not to any 
earthly order of priesthood but to the ministry in heaven 
for which it proved the necessary basis. Of Calvary it 
might have been said what Jacob said of Bethel : “This is 
none other than a house of God, this is the gate of heaven”. 

It will now have become clear, that the ideas of the 
priesthood and the covenant interlock no less closely than 
those of the covenant and revelation. The priesthood ful- 
fills itself in being and bringing near to God and the purpose 
of the covenant is precisely the same. Both look to com- 
munion with God. There is no risk in affirming that the 
author was clearly conscious of this parallelism. The 
priesthood is to him center and substance of the covenant, 
that in which the covenant actually subsists. Both from the 
instrumental point of view of the covenant, and from the 
point of view of its eternal permanence, this holds true. As 
the covenant is an instrument of salvation, so is the priest- 
hood. In the seventh chapter the comparison between the 
two orders of priesthood, the Levitical priesthood of the 
Old Testament and the Melchizedek priesthood of the New, 
turns with perfect naturalness into a comparison of the 
two covenants. In no other way than through the priest- 
hood can the covenant as an instrument accomplish its pur- 
pose. The old Latin name “instrumentum” as a rendering 



for haOrjKr) was from this point of view most felicitously 
chosen. The author is so thoroughly convinced of the cen- 
tral place of the priesthood in both dispensations that in 
vii. ii he even represents the Levitical priesthood as the 
higher category under which the whole law is subsumed: 
“Under it the people received the law”. The entire legis- 
lation was grouped around it. The same thought finds 
formal expression a little later (verse 12) in the statement: 
“Where there is a change of priesthood there is made of 
necessity a change also of the law”. The reason is not, 
as some think, that the law regulates the priesthood, and 
that consequently a change in the latter proves the former to 
have become invalidated. The author means it in the 
opposite sense : the priesthood, being changed, becomes a 
center from which the transformation of the religious sys- 
tem radiates in every direction. Hence also it is not a 
question of the new priest being another person individu- 
ally considered, but a question of His being differently 
constituted; He is not merely aX.\o? but e-repo?, heterogen- 
eous in character, and this explains why with His arrival 
on the scene the old order must pass away. It is a small 
thing that in the point of priestly genealogy the rule has 
been changed, descent from Levi no longer being required; 
the great revolutionary fact is that in the place of a priest 
deriving his position from legal appointment consisting in 
a carnal, that is a perishable, commandment, there arises a 
priest who owes His office to the power of an endless life. 
Still in another form the same thought recurs in the twen- 
tieth verse. Here the difference between the Levitical priests 
and Jesus is said to appear in this, that they were made 
priests without an oath, He with an oath. The two priest- 
hoods are different at their very source, the one flows from 
a legal ordinance, the other from an oath, and the oath has 
in it all the determination and all the energies of a supreme 
divine undertaking. In the legal ordinance God expresses 
His authority, in the oath He pledges Himself with the 
fulness of His prestige, and all His divine resources. There- 


fore the oath-begotten priesthood is incomparably superior 
to the other. But, because the priesthood makes the cove- 
nant, the author draws straightway from the role played 
by the oath in His appointment the conclusion that Jesus 
is the surety of an intrinsically better covenant; thus once 
more confirming the rule that the excellence of the cove- 
nant is in exact proportion to the excellence of the priest- 
hood. The synonymous terms “surety” and “mediator” 
also mark the interdependence of the priesthood and the 
covenant, for it is precisely as priest that Jesus becomes 
the surety, the sponsor of the New Covenant : because He is 
an oath-appointed priest He is a better surety. Through 
the manner of His priesthood He renders the effectuation 
of the covenant assured. 

If the priesthood of Jesus is thus seen to be the heart of 
the instrumental covenant, it occupies the same place in the 
covenant as a permanent reality. This aspect of the mat- 
ter finds expression in xii. 24: among the eternal posses- 
sions to which believers have come in the heavenly Jerusa- 
lem the author here assigns the highest place to Jesus and 
that in His capacity of mediator of the New Covenant. 
Both the covenant and the priesthood retain in the eternal 
world their abiding significance. In the eternal priest the 
covenant has become eternalized. For this reason the blood 
with which Jesus was brought back from the dead, that is 
the expiation which in His endless resurrection-life He 
makes available, is called the blood of an everlasting cove- 
nant, and in virtue of it Jesus never ceases to be the great 
Shepherd of the sheep of the Israel of God. 

The equivalence of the priesthood to the covenant will 
become still more clearly apparent if we trace the formative 
influence of the one upon the other in the Epistle’s descrip- 
tions of the subjective religious life of believers. This life 
is frequently referred to in terms directly drawn from, or 
at least colored by, the priestly conception. These terms all 
attach themselves not to the intermediate, preparatory stage 
of the priesthood, but to the final act in which the priesthood 


issues, which shows once more how firmly the author’s 
interest in the priesthood is centered there. A standing 
name for believers as benefited by the priesthood of Christ 
is “those who draw near”. “Having then a great high 
priest ... let us draw near with boldness unto the throne 
of grace” (iv. 14-16). Jesus, by virtue of His eternal 
priesthood “is able to save to the uttermost them that draw 
near unto God through Him” (vii. 25). And the writer 
exhorts the readers : “Having a great priest over the 

house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in fulness 
of faith”. This, it will be seen, is terminology drawn from 
the official life of the priest: it is his business to draw near; 
the people through his work are enabled to do after him 
what he has first done alone. By thus being transferred to 
the daily covenant-life of every believer, the description im- 
parts to the latter a peculiarly active, mobile character; its 
distinguishing feature is not merely to stand in communion 
with God, but to tend, to draw towards God in an ever- 
renewed approach. The resemblance becomes even more 
pronounced when not only the movement of drawing near 
but also the act of offering up is transferred from the priest 
to the Christian: “Through Him then let us offer up a 
sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of 
lips that make confession to His name” (xiii. 15). This 
assumes a still more generalized form when the Christian 
life is called a \arpeia a “service”. As the word in the 
original shows, we must keep away from this conception all 
the modern associations of altruistic endeavor in the cause 
of God : it stands strictly for the service of worship which 
directly terminates upon God. It too has been taken from 
the ritual vocabulary of the Old Testament. Of the priests 
it is said that they “serve” in the tabernacle. “They that 
draw near”, and “they that serve” are used in entirely the 
same connections to describe believers in their central re- 
ligious occupation (ix. 9; x. 1). The purifying of Christ’s 
blood is for this purpose that believers may be enabled by 
it “to serve the living God”. It does this because it cleanses 
the conscience from dead works, i.e. from the defilement 



of sin, and thus restores to the sinner the privilege of 
appearing as a worshipper before the face of God (ix. 14). 
It ought to be observed, however, that the Epistle does not 
go so far in this direction as the Old Testament represen- 
tation of the covenant-status of Israel on the one hand, and 
on the other, in dependence on it, the First Epistle of Peter 
and the Apocalypse do, when they definitely invest the people 
of God with priestly character. In placing the covenant 
before Israel Jehovah promised them that under it they 
would be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, in other words 
that in their collective capacity they would sustain to Him 
the same relation that a priest sustains to the deity in whose 
temple he ministers (Ex. xix. 6). Peter transfers this to 
the New Testament congregation, addressing his readers 
as “a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices through 
Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. ii. 5). And the seer of the Apoca- 
lypse bases a doxology upon the fact that Christ has made 
believers joint-kings and priests with Himself and God, or 
priests of God and of Christ (i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6). But to 
the writer of our Epistle, the priesthood of Jesus has as- 
sumed such stupendous proportions and been brought into 
such close connection with His divine sonship and with 
His specifically redemptive function that he naturally hesi- 
tates to include believers in its exercise even after a secon- 
dary and metaphorical fashion. Still upon the fundamental 
duty of the believer to make his whole covenant-life a 
worship-service of God he insists. At this point the oppo- 
site pole of the SiaOr/iai -conception, that representing the 
sovereignty and majesty of God, exerts its influence. As 
in the making of the covenant there is no absolute two- 
sidedness, the divine prerogative being paramount, so in the 
resulting covenant-intercourse there can be no absolute co- 
equality; the fellowship with God which stands at the goal 
inevitably assumes the form of a service, a worship of God 
by man. It is covenant-communion exercised in a sanct- 
everything that enters the stamp of His own majesty and 
dominion. The covenant-life of Israel concentrated in the 
uary, where God alone is supreme and where He sets upon 


tabernacle already bore this character; it belongs in a 
heightened degree to the covenant-life of the New Testa- 
ment church, but its fundamental significance is best seen 
from this, that it remains the constitutive principle of the 
eschatological congregation, whose component orders are 
enumerated according to the rank they occupy in the heav- 
enly service of God. No small part of the practical value of 
the Epistle consists in the great energy with which it up- 
holds the direct Godward function of worship as lying at 
the very basis of Christianity. Hebrews is the Epistle of 
the cultus and the Christian life it portrays is a cultus in the 
noblest sense of the word. At a time when the man-ward 
functions of religion are in the ascendant, especially when 
the word “service” is being almost monopolized for the 
Christian activities that aim at the promotion of the well- 
being of man, it can do no harm to let ourselves be reminded 
by the writer of this Epistle that there is such a thing as a 
service to God that is not rendered by indirection, but is as 
exclusively and directly appropriated to Him as the gift that 
is laid upon the altar, an alabaster-vase of ointment whose 
very preciousness consists in this that it cannot even be sold 
and the proceeds given to the poor. It will be said perhaps 
that the cult-terminology employed by the Epistle in the de- 
scription of the Christian life is a mere transparent alle- 
gory, occasioned by speaking of the New Covenant in terms 
of the Old, and that therefore no positive significance can 
be attached to it except that of a momentary accommodation 
to the exigencies of the argument, or possibly to the Jewish- 
Christian standpoint of the readers, who would be pleased 
to find in the Christian institutions a reflex of their own 
ancestral rites. This explanation is hardly adequate, partly 
because it is far from certain that the Epistle is addressed to 
Jewish-Christian readers, but mainly for another reason. 
The Old Testament ceremonial institutions were to the 
author not matter-of-fact customs such as this theory of 
accommodation assumes ; they were to him the product of 
revelation in the strictest sense of the word ; that they were 
revealed involved on his premises, as we have seen, the em- 


bodiment in them of everlasting principles of religion; 
therefore the cult-aspect in which he represents Christianity 
reproduces in his opinion these same principles, which 
amounts to saying that it is more than a form, that it rep- 
resents something inseparable from the Christian religion. 
The best proof of the soundness of this position lies in the 
eschatological use which the Epistle makes of the same 
terminology. The language of priest and altar and sac- 
rifice and cultus is transferred to the consummate, heavenly 
state; this would not have been possible had the author 
looked upon all such forms of statement as pure symbolism. 
His intense spiritualism should not be confounded with 
idealism. It is opposed only to materialism, not to the sound 
realism which the New Testament writings everywhere up- 
hold with reference to the future world. It may be dif- 
ficult for us, and probably would have been difficult for 
the writer, to define in the concrete what exactly is meant 
by the higher tabernacle not made with hands, not of this 
creation ; by the heavenly altar ; by the appearance of Christ 
before the face of God ; by the cleansing of the things above ; 
but human inability to form of this any other than a sense- 
conception does not warrant the inference that, where sense 
is excluded, all objectivity disappears and that everything 
taught of the heavenly life may be safely dissolved into in- 
ternal processes and mental states. No, the archetypes of 
these things are real to the author; he believes in the con- 
crete objective existence of the contents of the celestial life, 
though the wings on which he soars to it are of the finest, 
most ethereal spirituality. And, inasmuch as the Christian 
life on earth anticipates the conditions of the world to come, 
it likewise must needs bear the impress of the eternal moulds 
into which it will be cast hereafter. 

Still another respect in which the covenant and the 
priestly conception have jointly put their stamp upon the 
Epistle’s view of the Christian life may be briefly touched 
upon in this connection. It is characteristic of covenant 
and priesthood alike that they emphasize the collective no 
less than the individual status of the religious subject. This 



follows directly from the preceding point. If Christianity 
is a worship, a service offered to God, then it must organize 
itself on a collective basis, for the worship of God cannot 
fulfill itself unless it proceeds from the congregation as a 
whole. In fact the Old Testament berith and the Old 
Testament priesthood had this very thing as their main 
purpose, that a proper cultus should be offered to Jehovah 
through the providing of a proper cult-unit in the congre- 
gation of Israel. Not merely the individual Israelite has 
to render this service; the people are obligated to it and 
responsible for it. On its behalf the regular sacrifices are 
offered and the regular offices of worship discharged. 
Hence Paul represents the Xarpeia or “service” as one of 
the great distinctive privileges of Israel, coordinate with 
such things as the adoption, the Shechinah, the hia6r)Ka„ 
the giving of the law, the promises, the fathers, and the 
giving birth, after the flesh, to the Christ (Rom. ix. 4, 5). 
The writer of Hebrews transfers this collective manner of 
speaking to the New Testament. He speaks in a number 
of passages of Christians as constituting “the people”, “the 
people of God” (ii. 17; iv. 9; viii. 10; xiii. 12), just as he 
applies this name to the Old Testament Israel (v. 3; vii. 5, 
11, 27; ix. 7, 19; x. 30; xi. 25). It is a mistake to draw 
from this an argument for the Jewish extraction of the 
readers of the Epistle, as if the writer meant that from 
a racial, national point of view they form the continuation 
of the people of Israel. With bodily descent this whole 
way of speaking has nothing whatever to do. It is not an 
ethnic but a theocratic designation. Even in regard to the 
Old Testament Israel, where the author introduces it, he 
is not led to do so by the thought of their common physical 
descent. Israel in the last analysis became a Xao'5, a people 
of God, because Jehovah in the berith organized them as 
a congregation for His service. And so it is under the New 
Covenant. It will be observed that in most of the passages 
where the terms “people”, “people of God” occur, their 
mention has been induced by the connection of the state- 
ment with the covenant or priesthood. Jesus makes ex- 


piation for the sins of the people (ii. 17). There remains 
a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God (iv. 9). Jesus 
suffered that He might sanctify the people with His blood 
(xiii. 12). The high-priest offers for sin both for himself 
and for the people (v. 3; vii. 27; ix. 7). The Levitical 
priests take the tithes of the people (vii. 5). Moses 
sprinkled the people (ix. 19). The representative position 
which the priest occupies with reference to the beneficiaries 
of His office of itself brings about the consolidation of 
these into a people of God. 

Another name for the body of believers is “the house of 
God”. This also is connected with the idea of the priest- 
hood, for Jesus is called in one of the passages where it 
occurs “a great priest over the house of God” (x. 21). In 
this name “house of God” the principle of organic contin- 
uity of grace is implied, which elsewhere in the New Testa- 
ment and throughout the Old appears as one of the 
important correlates of the covenant-conception. If God 
enters into the covenant relation not with men in their indi- 
vidual capacity only but as members of a priestly organism, 
then the perpetuation of this organism is ipso facto pro- 
vided for. The Old Testament emphasizes throughout that 
Jehovah establishes His covenant not merely with the par- 
ents but with their offspring in the successive generations. 
Both Peter in his speeches in Acts (ii. 39; iii. 25) and Paul 
in Galatians (iv. 24-31) represent the covenant as a pro- 
creative organism, having its sons and daughters through 
the ages of redemptive history. It must be acknowledged, 
however, that this side of the matter, while doubtless im- 
plied, is not made explicitly prominent in the Epistle. 
Apart from the covenant idea the element of continuity is 
found by the writer inherent in the promises given to 
Abraham. These promises he does not call a covenant, for 
the old biddr/ieri, with which the new is coordinated, begins 
according to his representation at Sinai, not with Abraham. 
But the promise underlies the whole subsequent develop- 
ment ; it is the broad basis on which the two successive cove- 
nants rest: New Testament believers have an equal interest 



in it with the saints of the old dispensation, and in this way 
the uninterrupted continuity of grace is recognized (vi. 

We have now traced the influence of the covenant-idea in 
the Epistle along the two lines of revelation and of priest- 
hood. It is easy to see that these lines represent two mu- 
tually complementary movements, each beginning at the 
point opposite to that from which the other proceeds, and 
having for their common destination the realization of 
fellowship between God and man. In revelation God 
makes His approach to man; through the priesthood man 
makes His approach to God; where both reach their ideal 
perfection, there the ideal covenant is given. The covenant 
movement must necessarily flow through these two chan- 
nels. And, since Hebrews makes the covenant-idea central, 
by far the larger part of what it has to teach concerning 
the interplay of religion between God and man attaches 
itself to these two conceptions. Still there is an element in 
the description of the subjective side of religion in the 
Epistle which shows no outward and formal dependence 
upon the idea of the covenant. This element is found 
largely in the account given by the author of the patriarchal 
history, of the annals of faith during the period when the 
old Sinaitic covenant was not yet in existence. And the 
interesting feature of this description is, that, while the 
formal notion of the covenant plays no part whatever in 
it, yet the same outstanding and characteristic traits which 
the account of the later religious life assumes under the 
influence of the covenant-conception appear in it with strik- 
ing distinctness. The significance of this phenomenon lies 
in the witness it bears to the inherence of the covenant form 
in the very idea of religion itself as the writer conceives it. 
Religion is to his view so essentially and so inevitably a 
matter of mutual union and fellowship in the conscious 
sphere, that its manner of appearance and mode of exer- 
cise cannot help suggesting the thought of the covenant 
even where there is no conscious desire on the writer’s part 


to obtrude it upon our attention. The description of faith 
in the eleventh chapter is well-adapted to illustrate this. 
Faith is not here set forth from the specifically Pauline point 
of view as saving trust in Christ as the exponent of the 
grace and power of God. At first sight it may even seem 
to possess far less personal concentration than the Pauline 
conception of faith. The author defines it in an impersonal 
way as “assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things 
not seen” (xi. i). And yet that this is more so in appear- 
ance than in reality follows from the other eminently per- 
sonal statement: “Without faith it is impossible to be 
pleasing unto God, for he that cometh unto God must be- 
lieve that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that 
seek after Him” (verse 6). Though faith is the organ of 
perception of the unseen and future realities and takes in 
with its vision a comprehensive realm of objects, there is 
in this circle which it sweeps a center, a focus; the things 
not seen and the things hoped for have a true unity, and 
this unity lies in God. No greater mistake could be made 
than to imagine, that the faith illustrated in this chapter is 
no more than the innate human faculty to believe in things 
that cannot be perceived by the senses. The heroes of this 
faith are the great figures of the history of redemption, and 
this of itself proves that its objects are the supernatural 
realities of the world of redemption — whence also hope is 
a species of faith. Though not in the specific Pauline sense 
of justifying faith, it is saving faith no less than the faith 
preached by Paul. And it is furthermore portrayed by the 
author as in the highest degree an intensive faith for the 
reason that at the time when it was exercised the redemptive 
realities had not yet been manifested, and all sight, all con- 
crete experience and enjoyment of these realities was ab- 
sent. All these died not having obtained. It was a faith 
that, subjectively speaking, had nothing but itself to fall 
back upon. This, however, is but another way of saying 
that it was faith in the promises. Now faith in a promise 
can from the nature of the case have no other than a 
pointedly personal reference. Belief in the fulfilment of 



the promise can only rest in trust in the promising Person. 
A personal occupation of the religious consciousness with 
God who stood back of the promises was therefore essen- 
tial to the faith of the patriarchs. Only the author gives 
this occupation a far wider range than the line of reasoning 
just followed would seem to require. Faith in the fulfil- 
ment of a promise might be concerned only with the veracity 
of the one who gave it and hence might lead to personal 
touch with Him only at this single point of His character. 
The Epistle means far more than that the patriarchs relied 
on the truthfulness of God. Its view is rather this, that 
through the absence of the concrete temporal gifts of sal- 
vation the patriarchs were brought to an immanent appre- 
hension of the source of these gifts in the character of 
God Himself, and that not along the line of the divine 
faithfulness alone but in a most comprehensive manner 
along the line of all the elements that the nature of God 
as revealed to them contained. Having naught but prom- 
ises their faith was stimulated to approach the content of 
salvation on its ideal side as it lay in God, the expression 
of His mind, His purpose, His nature with reference to 
them. The proximate result of this was a strong spiritual- 
ization of their religious life. The promise, the word, is the 
most spiritual form in which the gifts of God can be ap- 
prehended. The next result showed itself in that other- 
worldliness or heavenly-mindedness which the author has 
so beautifully portrayed in his account of the character of 
Abraham. The patriarchs confessed that they were 
strangers and pilgrims on the earth : and this was because 
they could see and greet the promises only from afar. It 
is evident from this form of statement that their faith did 
not rest in the historical satisfaction that it might obtain 
by projecting itself through the vista of time to the point of 
fulfilment. On the contrary, because the vista was long 
and their faith eager, it made the sublime leap to the 
heavenly eternal things; to the seeing, the greeting of the 
promises from afar, there was added the seeking of a bet- 
ter country. And it is important to notice how the author 



represents this ascent of the patriarchs’ faith to the heavenly 
world as in no way mediated by the typical fulfilment of the 
promise that was to intervene between them and its final 
New Testament realization. The ascent to the heavenly 
country did not use as a stepping-stone the thought of the 
earthly Canaan; it was made directly from the vantage 
ground of the promises of God. It greeted from afar the 
Christ and drew near to the heavenly country above; in 
sublime sacrifice it surrendered whatever of earthly develop- 
ments lay between. In this close touch and intense pre- 
occupation of the patriarchs with the celestial world, the 
Epistle almost seems to find a sort of preexistence of the 
Christian relation to the same world, something of the same 
directness of approach to it and of the same absorption by 
its interests that the New Covenant has brought and which 
were unknown to the intermediate period when believers 
were dependent on shadows. As Paul found in the patri- 
archal period the preformation of the religion of grace and 
of universalism which the law coming in after could only 
obscure but not abrogate, so the author of Hebrews finds 
in it an earlier stage of that thorough spiritual-mindedness 
and of that profound other-worldliness of Christianity 
which it was his specific task to set forth. 

Even this, however, is not yet the highest aspect in which 
the Epistle invites us to consider the faith of the patri- 
archs. As spirituality led to heavenly-mindedness, so 
heavenly-mindedness in its turn assumes the form of a 
personal attachment to God. As the spiritual and the 
heavenly are to the author at bottom identical, so of both 
the center of attraction lies in God. Faith in its last analy- 
sis was to the patriarchs the apprehension, the possession, 
the enjoyment of God Himself. Throughout the music of 
this chapter the dominance of the personal note makes itself 
distinctly heard. Those who looked for the city that has 
the foundations sought it for no other reason than that its 
maker and builder is God. It is because it is the city of 
God, the structure in which He has embodied His own 


perfection, in which His thoughts and purposes for His 
own stand objectified, that it forms a worthy object of the 
supreme religious quest of the believer. In it is God at 
every point and those who dwell in it see His face con- 
tinually. The measure of their desire for it becomes the 
measure of their love of God. Herein also lies the defense 
against the charge that otherworldliness is a sickly strain in 
the religious consciousness, because inspired by selfish, 
eudaemonistic motives and because apt to hinder the de- 
velopment of a wholesome interest in and faithful perform- 
ance of the duties of the present life. This would be so 
if it were anything else but God-centered. The root of all 
that is ugly and injurious in extreme eschatological preoc- 
cupation can always be traced back to this, that it is in- 
sufficiently religious, that people seek something else in the 
other world than the perfect union with and service of God. 
Hence the two widely different types of other-worldliness 
that go side by side through religious history, the one dis- 
appointed with present conditions for self’s sake and pro- 
jecting into the future or into heaven the quenching of its 
own unpurified desires, and therefore apt to show itself in 
times of spiritual decline or secular adversity; the other 
unsatisfied because the highest religious experience in this 
life cannot still a thirst for the living God that has capacities 
made for the world to come, and therefore apt to appear in 
times of deep and pure religious revival. The eschatologi- 
cal interest of the early church was very keen, but it was 
prevailingly of the latter kind. So far as the authoritative 
teaching of the New Testament books is concerned, it con- 
sistently emphasizes the thought that what believers seek in 
the world to come is the perfection of their religious rela- 
tion to God. Where any lower motive came into play, as 
among the new converts who as yet were but imperfectly 
Christianized could not fail to happen, and where the acute 
belief in the nearness of the end or the sharp disappoint- 
ment at its delay, threatened to interfere with the normal 
conduct of the life of the present, the needful corrective 
was immediately applied, and it consisted always in this that 


an appeal was made to the Christian’s allegiance to God, 
whom to love and whom to serve should be his supreme 
concern alike in this world and in the world to come. We 
can observe this very thing in our Epistle. Several indi- 
cations point to the existence among the readers of an 
eschatological preoccupation which was largely concerned 
with externals and which, when the external developments 
failed to come as quickly as had been expected, gave rise to 
discontent and through discontent to unbelief. It is in 
order to correct this evil that the author shifts the emphasis 
from the external to the internal, that he spiritualizes the 
content of the future life, and that in spiritualizing it he 
puts its center in the believer’s desire for God, all of which 
enabled him to show that in principle the treasures of the 
world to come are not shut up in an inapproachable future 
but lie now and here open to the experience of the Chris- 
tian. Hope is made a species of faith and faith is en- 
couraged to enter in and lay hold upon what is behind the 
veil. Through this whole noble description of faith rings 
the note of personal attachment, covenant-loyalty to God. 
It is a faith through which, like Moses, the Christian 
can endure as seeing Him who is invisible, which chooses 
rather to share ill-treatment with a people that belongs to 
God, than to inherit the treasures of Egypt. It is the re- 
sponsive act on the believer’s part to the act of covenant- 
committal on the part of God. Religion consummates itself 
in a mutual avowal, the people bearing God’s reproach and 
offering up a sacrifice of praise to Him continually, even 
the fruit of lips that make confession to His name, and 
God not being ashamed to be called their God and preparing 
for them a city. Thus the Epistle’s idea of faith falls into 
line with its teaching on revelation and on the priesthood 
and back of all three equally is seen to lie the covenantal 
conception of religion. 

With this result we may consider ourselves to have 
reached the conclusion of the task set for our enquiry. It 
is a noble view of Christianity that the Epistle holds up to 



us. The writer unites profound historical grasp of the or- 
ganic development of redemption with keen theological in- 
sight into the unchanging essence of revealed religion and 
fine psychological feeling for the generic forms which it as- 
sumes when entering into the conscious experience of man. 
In all these respects the teaching of Hebrews has done 
its full share in laying the foundations on which the later 
structure of Christian doctrine has been reared, a more 
generous share perhaps than, judging from its compass, 
might have been expected. And in no other theology have 
the principles that shape the Epistle been so fully and faith- 
fully incorporated as in that produced by the Reformed 
churches. We do not mean by this that the Reformed 
theology is to a large extent, like that of Hebrews, a cove- 
nant-theology, for that might be a matter of mere super- 
ficial resemblance. It is not that the label or the bottles 
are the same ; the wine is the same in both cases. In some 
measure this may be explainable from the fact that the 
representatives of the federal theology drew upon Hebrews 
as their source. On the whole, however, we have to do 
here not with a slavish borrowing of material but with a 
free and living reproduction of identical principles. Both in 
Hebrews and with the Reformed teachers a peculiar insight 
into the highest possibilities of religion instinctively chose 
for its form of expression the covenant-idea. 

It may be briefly pointed out how in the Reformed the- 
ology the same great perceptions lie embedded that we have 
found shaping the doctrine of the Epistle. The first place 
should be given to the recognition of the majesty and sov- 
ereignty of God in the whole process of religion and re- 
demption. It is all embraced in a Si aOr/ar), a comprehen- 
sive system, and in this system all things are of God. His 
is the originality in conceiving, His the initiative in inaugu- 
rating, His the monergism in carrying out. There is no 
room for any fortuitousness of chance, any uncertainty of 
issue, no point anywhere where the hand of God is not in 
absolute control. It is a system that has an oath of God 
and a sponsorship of Christ back of all its provisions. And 


the principle thus recognized in the redemptive sphere also 
asserts itself in the general religious attitude of man to- 
wards God. A deep impression of the divine majesty colors 
all intercourse with Him. For Him are all things and 
through Him are all things. The creature exists for His 
sake. He is the living God into whose hands it is fearful 
to fall, for those who disobey Him a consuming fire. A 
consciousness of strict accountability in view of God’s sover- 
eign rights over man has always characterized the Reformed 
religion even to such an extent as to invite the charge that 
its puritanic practice savors of a spirit of legalism more at 
home in the Old Testament than in the New. But legalism 
has nothing to do with this ; it is here as in Hebrews simply 
the correlate in life of the vivid impression of the majesty 
of God in belief. Legalism lacks the supreme sense of 
worship. It obeys but it does not adore. And no deeper 
notes of adoration have ever been struck than those in- 
spired by the Reformed faith, no finer fruit of the lips mak- 
ing confession to God’s name has ever been placed upon 
the Christian altar. 

In the second place, and as in a sense counterbalancing the 
foregoing, we may notice the stress laid in Reformed doc- 
trine upon the directness and spirituality and intimacy of 
the intercourse of God with the soul of the believer. The 
supreme contact is made not in the mystical regions of the 
unconscious, nor through magical sacramentarian processes, 
but in the luminous sphere of conscious fellowship through 
the interchange of thought and affection. The God who 
dwells in the high and holy place comes nearest to the 
humble heart and the contrite spirit. This is not saying 
that it is unworthy of God to touch and influence man on 
the subconscious side. It only implies that such contact 
and influence are always a means to an end, not religious 
ends in themselves. The religious process tends to vision 
in the light, to knowledge face to face, precisely because 
it has to interact with and form part of the life of Him 
who is a light and in whom there is no darkness at all. For 
this reason the ultimate root of every believer’s relation to 



God lies in the most intimate and individual act of election, 
an act wherein the love of God consciously chooses and sets 
up over against itself a human spirit to be bound to God in 
the bonds of everlasting friendship. Election and the cove- . 
nants answer to each other as the root and the fruitage of 
the highest type of religion. 

In the third place the Reformed Theology ascribes to the 
Christian life a unique degree of devotion to the interests 
and the glory of God. The believer does not merely desire 
to have intercourse with God, but specifically to make this 
intercourse subservient to glorifying God. Hence on the 
one hand the high place which the direct worship of God 
holds in the exercise of the religious function, on the other 
hand the consistent effort to organize the whole of life on 
the principle of a comprehensive service of God, the re- 
ligious impulse imparting to every human activity and 
achievement that spirit by which they are made to redound 
to the honoring of God’s name. No brighter examples of 
absolute devotion and self-surrender to God in unstinted 
covenant service can be found anywhere than in the annals 
of the Reformed faith. 

In the fourth place the Reformed Theology has with 
greater earnestness than any other type of Christian doc- 
trine upheld the principles of the absoluteness and un- 
changing identity of truth. It is the most anti-pragmatic 
of all forms of Christian teaching. And this is all the more 
remarkable since it has from the beginning shown itself 
possessed of a true historic sense in the apprehension of 
the progressive character of the deliverance of truth. Its 
doctrine of the covenants on its historical side represents, the 
first attempt at constructing a history of revelation and 
may justly be considered the precursor of what is at present 
called Biblical Theology. But the Reformed have always . 
insisted upon it that at no point shall a recognition of the 
historical delivery and apprehension of truth be permitted to 
degenerate into a relativity of truth. The history remains 
a history of revelation. Its total product agrees absolutely 
in every respect with the sum of truth as it lies in the eternal 



mind and purpose of God. If already the religion of the 
Old and New Testament Church was identical, while the 
process of supernatural revelation was still going on, how 
much more must the church, since God has spoken for the 
last time in His Son, uphold the ideal absoluteness of her 
faith as guaranteed by its agreement with the Word of God 
that abideth forever. It is an unchristian and an unbiblical 
procedure to make development superior to revelation in- 
stead of revelation superior to development, to accept belief 
and tendencies as true because they represent the spirit of 
the time and in a superficial optimism may be regarded as 
making for progress. Christian cognition is not an evolu- 
tion of truth, but a fallible apprehension of truth which 
must at each point be tested by an accessible absolute norm 
of truth. To take one’s stand upon the infallibility of the 
Scriptures is an eminently religious act; it honors the su- 
premacy of God in the sphere of truth in the same way as 
the author of Hebrews does by insisting upon it, notwith- 
standing all progress, that the Old and the New Testament 
are the same authoritative speech of God. In these four 
vital respects we may truthfully say that the covenant the- 
ology has the high credentials of being in agreement with 
the lines along which the covenant idea is worked out in 
Hebrews. And, insofar as this is the case, it is not an un- 
important variation, but a reversion to type, in which the 
conception of the Christian life comes nearest to one, and 
that not the least attractive, of the forms in which it is 
portrayed in the New Testament. 

Princeton. Geerhardus Vos. 


A recent visit to Siam has offered the opportunity to check 
the representations of the books with regard to Buddhism in 
Siam by conversations with the people, both priests and lay- 
men, and to seek in these conversations for those points of 
contact between Buddhism and Christianity, which can best 
be used in the presentation of Christianity. 

Siamese Buddhism is classified with the Buddhism of 
Burma and Ceylon as Southern Buddhism. It preserves the 
orthodox Buddhist traditions and is quite distinct from the 
Northern Buddhism of China and Japan which as a whole, 
and even more radically in some of the sects of Buddhism 
in Japan, has separated itself in many fundamental respects 
from the doctrine of Gautama. The assumption, however, 
that Siamese Buddhism is faithful to the primitive ideas 
of Buddhism, is unfounded. The moment it is examined 
or any of its responsible interpreters are questioned, it is 
discovered to be full of heresies. Moreover, it is of interest 
and significance to the missionary enterprise to note that 
each of the heretical departures from primitive Buddhism in 
Siam represents a step toward religious truth which Buddha 
either did not know or denied, and that each offers a distinct 
point of contact with Christianity. Such variations, more- 
over, have to do with the most central and important differ- 
ences between the Christian faith and Buddhist doctrine. 

These points of contact are well known to the missionaries 
in Siam and guide their methods of approach to thoughtful 
Buddhists. The difficulty is that thoughtful Buddhists 
are so few and that even those who are thoughtful are so 
ignorant of Buddhist history and teaching. In many tem- 
ples the young priests can tell a visitor nothing whatever 
about Buddha, not one fact or tradition about his earthly 
life, and what they offer as the teaching of Buddhism is 
something that by no stretch of the imagination can be 
traced back either to Buddha or to the early teachers of 


Buddhism. And while there are multitudes of better in- 
formed Buddhists who do know the story of the founder’s 
life, who have read some of the sacred writings and who 
have some ideas of Buddhist philosophy, nevertheless, even 
among these there are few who know what the original 
teaching was or who realize how far they have drifted from 
it. Their ideas afford points of contact in the presenta- 
tion of Christianity; but they have no realization that these 
ideas represent any departure from the traditional faith in 
the direction of a religious view more diametrically opposed 
to the Buddhist view than to any other in the world. It 
is easy accordingly to overestimate the apologetic value 
of these points of contact between Siamese Buddhism and 
Christianity, as the small fruitage of the work in southern 
Siam testifies. Such heretical departures from error have 
not brought men into the truth or enabled them to recognize 
it when they see it in its fullness. But it is worth while 
to examine again such points of contact as there are, since it 
seems quite clear that some of them will form the road over 
which the Buddhists of Siam will come to the true Light, 
toward which they have unconsciously been feeling their 

1. The first and fundamental heresy of Siamese Bud- 
dhism is its disposition to believe in God. In the words of 
Rhys Davids whom the head of Siamese Buddhism regards 
as the most acceptable and trustworthy western interpreter 
of Buddhism, and from whom 1 the otherwise uncredited 
quotations in this discussion are taken in order that the 
representation of early Buddhism may be one that Siamese 
Buddhists would approve, Buddha’s religion was one “which 
ignores the existence of God ”. 2 “The original teaching 
of Guatama . . . knew nothing of God” and “taught that 
Arahats, holy men, were better than gods .” 3 The Buddhists 
of Ceylon, who do preserve, as they claim, the true teaching 

1 Non-Christian Religious Systems. Buddhism. By T. W. Rhys 
Davids. London and New York. 1877. Twenty-second thousand, 1910. 

a P. ISO. 

*P. 203. 



of the Buddha, have issued a Buddhist catechism which 
aims to set forth uncompromisingly the original doctrine. 
‘‘Did a god creator call the world into existence by his will?” 
the catechism asks, and it answers, ‘‘There is no god creator. 
Only the ignorance of man has invented a personal god 
creator. The Buddhists, however, absolutely reject the belief 
in a personal god.” And in the supplementary notes the 
catechism says, ‘‘Buddhism does not deny gods nor does it 
attribute to them any special importance. It simply does 
not need them either as a prop to its ethics, or for the 
attainment of salvation. Whoever wishes to believe in God 
may do so, only he must not forget that the gods like all 
living beings are perishable and subject to rebirth . . . and 
that the saint who has reached perfection and, above all, 
the Buddha is far superior to all gods.” But the hearts 
of the Siamese people will not accept this doctrine either in 
its agnostic, its atheistic or its polytheistic form. They 
can not escape feeling, at least, the reality of a great mystery 
behind the world; and with increasing clearness they have 
come to think of a great creator and benevolent ruler of 
all things. For many years this faith has grown in articu- 
lateness and in currency. It has not extirpated the barren 
doctrine of Buddha but it has colored it with the heart’s 
irrepressible longing. 

2. In its need of God the Siamese heart has either deified 
Buddha himself or conceived of him as a messenger of the 
deity or, more dimly, insisted on looking forward to some- 
one yet to come out of the unseen who shall satisfy its long- 
ings. There was nothing in Buddha’s teaching to sanction 
such ideas. ‘‘Was Buddha a god’s messenger?” asks the 
Buddhist catechism, and answers unequivocally “No”. 
“Was he then a human being?” it continues: “Yes, he was 
born a human being.” The earliest documents represent 
“the historical Buddha ... to have taught that he was the 
latest of a series of seven Buddhas .” 4 The Siamese believe 
that he was the fourth of five Buddhas and, unsatisfied with 

4 P. 179. 


Guatama, they look for the coming of Metteyya or Maitreya 
who will bring the fullness of truth and of satisfaction to 
human hearts. Buddha’s own declaration was that after his 
death he would live only in the doctrine which he left be- 
hind him for the guidance of his followers. The Siamese 
Buddhists believe that he still lives, and to the great mass of 
them he is as God. 

3. As proof that they feel after God it is sufficient to note 
that the Siamese Buddhists have fallen into the heresy of 
prayer; and as evidence of their dimly theistic thought of 
Buddha it is to be said that it is to him, either the historic 
Buddha who was and who in their view still lives, or to the 
unseen Buddha who is to come, that they pray. Both praying 
alone in the temples before the great images and praying to- 
gether in great companies themselves or through the voice of 
the priest, the Siamese people seek to commune with God or 
to supplicate Him for the things that they want in their 
business, on their farms, or in their homes. But this is the 
repudiation of the doctrine of Buddha. “Buddhism does not 
acknowledge the efficacy of prayers. . . . The original teach- 
ing of Guatama . . . acknowledged no form of prayer” says 
Rhys Davids. 5 And the Buddhist catechism declares, 
“Prayer and sacrifice do not exist in the Buddhist religion.” 

4. In the fourth place Siamese Buddhists retain a great 
mass of the animistic ideas and practices which marked the 
religion of the people before they took up Buddhism. In 
this they have exemplified the statement which Rhys Davids 
makes broadly of Buddhism everywhere: “Buddhism has 
never been the only belief of the mass of its adherents, who 
have always also revered the powers of nature under the 
veil of astrology, or devil worship, or witchcraft, or the belief 
in tantras and charms. . . . Not one of the 500,000,000 
who offer flowers now and then on Buddhist shrines, who 
are more or less moulded by Buddhist teaching, is only or 
altogether a Buddhist.” 6 This intermixture of animism is 

8 Pp. 168, 203. 
•Pp. 150, 7. 


especially noticeable in northern Siam among the Lao peo- 
ple, whose real religion has been and is the worship and 
propitiation of spirits ; but throughout southern Siam also the 
little spirit shrines are erected outside the houses or the 
spirit shelf is put up within, and men whom the barrenness 
of Buddhism with its introversion of all the outward long- 
ings of the soul could not satisfy have held fast to the 
primitive animistic superstition as providing at least some 
less mocking spiritual nourishment. 

5. Not so much Siamese Buddhism as the human heart 
in Siam has turned utterly away from Buddha’s injunction 
to extirpate all longing for happiness. This was the in- 
junction of primitive Buddhism. The follower of Buddha 
was to think “of all things that worldly men hold good or 
bad, power and oppression, love and hate, riches and want, 
fame and contempt, youth and beauty, decrepitude and dis- 
ease, and regard them all with fixed indifference, with 
utter calmness and serenity of mind.” 7 The mental state 
that was to be sought was to be “without sorrow and with- 
out joy, by the destruction of previous gladness and grief, 
by the rejection of joy, and the rejection of sorrow.” 8 Every, 
desire whether for existence or annihilation, for happiness 
or peace according to the Buddhist catechism “must be 
conquered, got rid of, relinquished, harbored no longer.” 
Such a proposition is of course to the human spirit both 
an absurdity and an impossibility. Buddha’s whole life 
was a seeking. The very terms in which Buddhism tries 
to state itself are morally and intellectually self-contra- 
dictory. The only possible result of trying to comprehend 
them and live by them is either intellectual anarchy or 
the philosophy of delusion in which the mind’s only relief 
is a state of auto-anaesthetization. Or else the human spirit, 
refusing to be befuddled, simply goes its natural and in- 
evitable way, seeking for the pure joys for which it knows 
that it was made and which it knows that it was made to 

’ P. 171. 
* P. 176. 


seek and to seek consciously and with all its will. This is 
what the mind and heart of Siam have done. They have 
not escaped the narcotic, torporizing influence of Buddhism, 
but neither have they surrendered the desire for a real and 
active happiness and sunk in Buddhism’s morass. 

6. It is not a point of contact with Christianity which 
the heresy of merit-making through vicarious sacrifice and 
service presents, and yet there are ideas involved in this 
thought as it is accepted to-day in Siam which are at 
variance with primitive Buddhism and which open the mind 
to larger and freer conceptions. Buddha “constantly main- 
tained that there was no positive merit in outward acts of 
self-denial and penance” 9 performed for one’s self or in 
behalf of others. “Cannot the Buddha by his own merit 
absolve us from the consequences of our guilt?” the Budd- 
hist catechism asks. “No” it answers, “nobody can be 
saved by another. No god and no saint, so teach the holy 
books, can protect one from the effects of one’s evil deeds. 
Every one must work out his own emancipation. The 
Buddha has only shown the way for everyone to become his 
own savior.” Guilt and suffering, merit and reward, the 
catechism teaches, are always purely individual and 
balance each other. There are contrary ideas in the mind 
of Siam. The son enters the priesthood to make merit for 
his parents. The vicarious principle receives no such re- 
jection as it has met with in orthodox Buddhism. 

7. The doctrine of transmigration is not the living and 
efficient idea in Siam that it was in primitive Buddhism 
and still is in orthodox Buddhist philosophy. To say that 
the conception is not wide-spread and powerful would be a 
mistake. It is a comfort to fall back on it as a possible 
explanation of many intellectual and moral problems. But 
as a working truth in a personal life it is utterly destitute 
of comfort, and men who live in a world of space and time 
and who have to do all their thinking in its terms are un- 
willing to have all their most vital interests toyed with by 

' P. 152. 


a doctrine which attempts to solve the general problem 
of suffering, but is useless to the man who suffers and 
worse than useless to the man who watches the sufferings 
of those he loves. Because the Siamese have human hearts 
they feel this and their feelings are more effective in shaping 
their lives than is their speculative philosophy. 

8. Primitive Buddhism, far from being the simple, happy 
life of early Christianity, contained many formal and 
rigid elements. Its precepts and counsels were marked by a 
spirit of numerical preciseness, and it developed a body of 
rites and forms which led later to a dispute whether these 
were original in Buddhism or were imitated from Romanism. 
The Pitakas describe an elaborate initiatory service for ad- 
mission to the Sangha, or priesthood. The monks must sit 
in a certain order, and the candidate must appear with a 
certain equipment, perform certain specified acts and ask 
three times specified questions. The whole ceremony is 
enjoined in detail. And not only to the members of the 
Sangha, but also to the lay follower religious rites are im- 
portant and indispensable, as the Buddhist catechism says, 
“to remind him of the true significance of life, to divert 
his mind from the temptations of the world, and to con- 
stantly set before him the highest goal.” Let any one 
watch an ordination ceremony in Siam, or frequent the 
services in the temples, or study the proceedings of in- 
dividuals, and he will see how promiscuously and lightly 
accurate forms and rituals affect religious life in Siam. 

9. The strongest movement in Siam to-day is the effort 
to produce a sense of nationality, of conscious political in- 
dividuality in the state. Siam greatly needs the develop- 
ment of such a consciousness. As has been pointed out 
elsewhere, the king is seeking with much sagacity to pro- 
duce it, and as one of his agencies of nationalistic education 
is making use of Buddhism as a national religion. But 
Buddhism held that “such states of mind as co-exist with 
the consciousness of individuality, with the sense of sep- 
arate existence, are states of suffering and sorrow.” 10 It 

” P. 48. 


is the will to live and to serve, to fulfill and to realize 
one’s life, which the Buddhist catechism decries as the 
chief curse, the source of all sorrow. Siam is seeking to 
develop its resources, to increase its wealth, to enlarge its 
prosperity, to advance the happiness and well being and 
joy of its people, but the Buddhist catechism says that 
these are the very things from which Buddhism seeks to 
free us. “He who considers the abandonment of earthly 
pleasures and enjoyments as a painful renunciation,” it 
says, “is still far from true wisdom. But he who views 
this abandonment as a deliverance from worthless, vain and 
troublesome things, from oppressive fetters, looks upon it 
from the right point of view.” 

10. Lastly, the people of Siam, through and in spite of 
their Buddhism, look forward longingly to a future of 
eternal, conscious, personal bliss. Orthodox Buddhism 
“denies the existence of the soul ” 11 and there is doubt as 
to just what Buddha thought was actually to be the end 
of the thing that we call soul and whose existence Buddhism 
denies but with which, whatever it be called, religion has 
to do. Professor Childers was sure that Buddhism’s ul- 
timate goal for the soul was complete extinction. “The 
word Nirvana,” he said in his Pali dictionary, “is used to 
designate two different things, the state of blissful satis- 
faction called Arhatship, and the annihilation of existence 
in which Arhatship ends. . . . There is no annihilation 
without Arhatship and no Arhatship that does not end in 
annihilation. . . . Nirvana is the annihilation of every 
conceivable attribute of being.” “They who by steadfast 
mind,” says the Ratana Sutta, “have become exempt from 
evil desire, and well trained in the teachings of Guatama; 
they, having obtained the fruit of the fourth Path, and 
immersed themselves in that ambrosia, have received with- 
out price, and are in the enjoyment of Nirvana. Their 
old karma is exhausted, no new karma is being produced; 
their hearts are free from the longing after future life; 

U P. 150. 



the cause of their existence being destroyed, and no new 
yearnings springing up within them, they, the wise, are 
extinguished like this lamp .” 12 Rhys Davids cannot bring 
himself to think of annihilation as the goal of Buddhism. He 
regards as the goal “the extinction of that sinful, grasping 
condition of mind and heart, which would otherwise, ac- 
cording to the great mystery of Karma, be the cause of 
renewed individual existence .” 12 And this is what the 
Buddhist catechism calls it, “A state of mind and heart 
in which all desire for life or annihilation, all egotistic 
craving, has become extinct and with it every passion, every 
grasping desire, every fear, all ill will, and all sorrow.” 
The catechism recognizes the difficulty of a definition and 
adds, “Only one who has himself experienced it knows what 
Nirvana is, for how can that be called a state of mind 
and heart which has an existence after the mind and heart 
have been extinguished?” In a note the catechism faces 
this difficulty. “Nirvana literally translated,” it says, “means, 
to be extinguished for want of fuel. From this the in- 
ference has been drawn by some that Nirvana signifies 
nothingness. This is an erroneous opinion ; on the contrary, 
Nirvana is a state of the highest spiritualization, of which 
indeed no one who is still fettered by earthly ties can have 
an adequate conception. What is it then that is extinguished 
or blown out in Nirvana? Extinguished is the will-to-live, 
the craving for existence and enjoyment in this or another 
world ; extinguished is the delusion that material possessions 
have any intrinsic or lasting value. Blown out is the flame 
of sensuality and desire, forever blown out the flickering 
will-o’-the-wisp of the ‘ego’ or ‘I’.” According to Buddhism 
there never was a soul that craved; and now in Nirvana 
the craving that was without a soul is also gone. If there 
is anything in Nirvana to be experienced, what is there to 
experience it? Indeed the catechism frankly adds that the 
ulterior Nirvana “in the sense of other religions and of 
scientific materialism is indeed total annihilation, complete 

“P. in f. 


dissolution of the individuality, for nothing remains in 
Parinirvana which in any way corresponds to the human 
conception of existence.” 

But as all this is supposed to be addressed to human beings 
and to have to do with their interests, and as all that it 
proposes to human beings is their utter extirpation, they 
have never been willing, and they never will be willing, to 
live by it. Either Nirvana becomes an utter unreality to 
them or it dissolves into the hope of a conscious personal 
existence in heaven. With one or two exceptions every 
Buddhist with whom we talked in Siam said that his idea 
of Nirvana was a state of the highest possible conscious 
personal bliss, and the chief priest himself told us that in 
his view Nirvana corresponded to the New Testament 
idea of a perfect and eternal heavenly life. 

In other words Buddhism has become in Siam not a 
mere personal moralism, not a negative atheistic philosophy 
ending in a mist that cannot be penetrated and of which 
nothing intelligible can be said, but a religion of hunger 
and search, not eager but feeling after the very light and 
joy which Christ came to bring in their abundant fullness 
to every man. 

New York. 

Robert E. Speer. 


The fact that I preceded you in the office into which you 
are now being inducted may make it appropriate that the 
duty of delivering the customary charge to you on this 
occasion should devolve upon me. But for this fact, it 
would have seemed more natural for this sendee to fall 
to the lot of one of my colleagues in the Board of Directors 
who is still engaged in the active work of the ministry and 
who therefore might reasonably be expected to speak more 
sympathetically and out of a more intimate knowledge re- 
specting the relation of the Seminary to the Church than I 
can be expected to do. But whatever my shortcomings may 
be, I claim to be behind none of my colleagues in the 
warmth with which, in the name of the Board of Directors, 
I welcome you to this most important position and in my 
appreciation of your special qualifications for the office to 
which you have been so cordially elected. 

You come to the duties of this office out of the active 
work of the pastorate and bring with you the large ex- 
perience you have gained in two of the most important 
charges in the Presbyterian Church. You know, therefore, 
the importance of thorough training for the minister and 
the use of that training in the weekly ministrations of the 
sanctuary. You have been and are still a member of some 
of the most important administrative agencies of our 
Church. You are therefore exceptionally qualified for 
bringing the work of the Seminary to the notice of the 
Church, and the work of the Church to the attention of the 
Seminary. It is moreover a matter of gratification to us 
all that the first year of your service as President of the 
Seminary synchronizes with the year of your elevation to 
the moderatorship of the General Assembly, during which 
period you are entrusted with the care of all the churches. 

*The charge to the Reverend J. Ross Stevenson, D.D., LL.D., on the 
occasion of inauguration as President of Princeton Theological 



But not the least of your qualifications for this position, 
though I name it last, is the fact that you have yourself 
been a professor in a theological seminary; that conse- 
quently you know the value and the methods of scientific 
investigation in the several departments of theology and 
that you are in no danger of allowing a zeal for populariz- 
ing the teaching of the Seminary to blind you to the im- 
portance of maintaining a high standard of scholarly effi- 
ciency in the professorial chairs. 

I congratulate you upon the prospect of being associated 
with a body of men in the Faculty, the Board of Directors 
and the Board of Trustees with whom it will be a delight 
to work. I am speaking out of a happy memory of my own 
association with these men when I promise you that you 
will find them sympathetic and responsive to your wishes in 
regard to the plans you may form for the Seminary’s in- 
terest and that, as far as they can do so without a surrender 
of their own proper sense of responsibility, they will co- 
operate with you to the full extent of their ability. I will 
go so far as to say — and I think I may say it without offense 
— that, if your experience shall at all resemble mine, there 
will be times when you will discover that their judgment is 
better than your own. 

I am so confident that my views in regard to the work 
of this Institution are practically coincident with yours that 
I shall not put this address in the form of a charge but will 
the rather allow myself the liberty of speaking frankly in 
regard to some matters pertaining to the function of the 
theological seminary in general and of this Seminary in par- 
ticular. I shall not attempt to define the duties of the 
President of this Institution or to indicate how they should 
be performed. A man called to this office must interpret 
the duties of the office for himself and shape his method of 
performing them according to his own conscientious judg- 
ment. Were I to enter into the field of suggestion, to which 
I might be tempted by virtue of my former relation to 
the Seminary, I might possibly transcend the limits of good 



taste and unwittingly be even guilty of what might be 
regarded as an invasion of personal rights. I hope, how- 
ever, that, without running too great a risk of trespassing 
on forbidden territory, I may allow myself the privilege of 
making a few remarks touching some contemporary issues 
in the sphere of theological instruction; but in doing this I 
feel that I may count in the main upon your full concur- 

This Theological Seminary is a training camp for sol- 
diers of the cross. It is also a fortress. I may have 
occasion to make use of both these metaphors in the course 
of my remarks, but I have more immediately before my 
mind the idea that the Seminary is a place for the training 
of men for the work of the ministry. 

There is a tendency just now to put special emphasis 
upon the practical side of theological instruction, partly be- 
cause this phase of the minister’s training was relatively 
neglected in former days and partly also, I have no doubt, 
because the complicated and multifarious duties of the min- 
ister of a modern City Church are in such decided contrast 
with the duties devolving upon ministers belonging to the 
older generation. That this demand for more practical 
training should be met there can be no question, but in 
meeting it, great care should be taken not to lessen the re- 
quirements for thorough study of the great departments of 
theology. Students naturally desire to receive special in- 
struction in regard to the practical work of the pastorate. 
This to them is their nearest objective. They accordingly 
wish to know how to organize the various societies that now 
form a part of a well equipped congregation ; how to man- 
age the Sunday School ; how to administer the ordinances ; 
how to solemnize marriage and how to bury the dead. 
Ministers too, who have had to learn these things by ex- 
perience after entering upon the work of the ministry, 
sometimes come back to us and ask why they were not 
taught all these things in the Seminary. Now of course 
there is room in a theological curriculum for a great deal 



of sound advice, good counsel and plain, practical directions 
which students should have, and which I think they may 
have without encroaching upon the time which should be 
devoted to the more laborious work of scholarly acquisition. 
In fact, the less formal such instruction is the more likely is 
it to be of practical value, but it must be evident that it is 
only in an imperfect way that this can prepare a young 
minister for meeting the practical exigencies of his calling. 
It would be impossible for a professor to anticipate the 
difficulties which a student will have to meet in the practical 
work of the ministry. No amount of instruction can super- 
sede the exercise of tact and individual judgment. Ex- 
perience is the best and, in many cases, the only possible 
teacher. You cannot teach a child to walk by giving it lec- 
tures on walking; and in respect to many a question in the 
sphere of practical pastoral duty I am inclined to think that 
the only answer possible is “solvitur ambulando” — unless 
you happen to own a motor car. 

I notice with interest that the attention of the Seminary 
has recently been turned to the importance of inculcating a 
better method of Sunday School instruction and one that is 
suited to the varying degrees of mental development on 
the part of the pupils. I venture to hope that a rational 
system may be adopted, if one has not already been devised, 
which may save the youth of our Church from the exploi- 
tations of the pedagogical psychologists. These educational 
philosophers have already taken possession of the primary 
school in secular education. They teach children to read, 
we are told, by the synthetic method of recognizing words 
in their wholeness as pictures — instead of teaching them by 
the old analytic method of building them up out of their 
component sounds and syllables. Perhaps it is to this 
method that we are indebted for so much original spelling 
on the part of some of our correspondents, and for the dis- 
tressing attempts (sometimes, I regret to say, even by 
preachers) to go across a familiar polysyllable without fall- 
ing down. So carefully has the psychology of the child 


been studied, it would appear, that the precise age when 
ideas of varying complexity can be mediated to the child’s 
understanding is fully known. And this accurate knowl- 
edge of what instruction is fitting to a child, determined 
as it is altogether by the age of the child and in disregard 
for all the differing capacities of children, reminds me of 
those suits of ready-made clothing which we sometimes see 
in the shop windows, plainly marked 5-6-7~8 years, with 
correspondingly larger sizes for misses of 12 and boys of 
14. How early in a child’s life one might venture to impart 
to him through the parable of the Good Shepherd a spiritual 
lesson in respect to his relation to the Saviour I do not 
know, but I have been told that in using this portion of 
Scripture for the instruction of children of tender years 
the lesson of kindness to dumb animals is about as far as 
it is safe to go. 

I am not so foolish as to suppose that a curriculum is 
something fixed for all time and that no change can be 
made in it without detriment to the great interests of theo- 
logical training. I cannot, therefore, confess to a deep in- 
terest in the distribution of hours in the several depart- 
ments of a theological curriculum. Whether one depart- 
ment gets six hours a week and another only five or four 
is a matter of detail that can best be left with the Faculty, 
where it properly belongs. But I am deeply interested in 
maintaining without any loss of efficiency the great and 
masterful branches of theological encyclopaedia, no matter 
how urgent the demand may be for the introduction of new 
subjects of study; and, in spite of the fact that ministers 
commonly use their Greek and Hebrew less than they ought 
to use them, I should deprecate any move that would make 
the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues an op- 
tional thing with any student who wishes to receive the 
diploma of this Seminary. 

I recognize the importance of some of the new studies 
for which the plea is made that they should be made part 
of a theological curriculum. Great questions in social 



ethics, for example, are demanding the attention of our 
ministers and these questions should be dealt with in the 
theological seminary. Sociology is knocking hard for ad- 
mission at our doors and, under the right conditions, I 
think it should be admitted, but a Sociology of experimenta- 
tion, of artificial methods of reform and of mere statistical 
information does not fulfill these conditions. The patho- 
logical conditions of society, as they reveal themselves in 
poverty, disease and crime, deserve the serious considera- 
tion of the Church and may well fall within the scope of the 
minister’s work. But it is not so much the phenomenology 
of disease that deserves our attention as its etiology and its 
therapeutics. As to the first question we shall find that the 
answer is given in the old fashioned doctrine of sin, and 
whether the answer to the second is to be found in a war 
against circumstances or in a change of heart will depend 
upon the conception men have of the meaning of Christi- 
anity. I still adhere to the Gospel as the best and only 
cure for all social ills. 

I am in favor of a very generous theological curriculum. 
The table should be liberally supplied with the delicacies as 
well as with the substantial meats of theological nourish- 
ment, but we must remember that men have varying ap- 
petites and, not only so, but varying capacities as well. We 
therefore cannot expect every student to profit alike by 
everything that every professor has to say. It is not what 
you eat but what you digest that does you good. It is only, 
in my judgment, as a man works his material over for his 
own use that it becomes part of himself and it is only as 
it becomes part of himself that he is benefited by it. Just 
how this process of mental metabolism goes on I do not 
know, but that is not strange for, if I am correctly in- 
formed, even in the material sphere of human physiology 
metabolism still has its mysteries. 

I suppose I am treading on delicate ground when I 
venture to say a word in regard to professors. As we have 
already heard in the lesson from the Scriptures, there are 


in a great house vessels of silver and vessels of gold, vessels 
of wood and vessels of earth. I suppose we all recognize 
that some of our friends carry their knowledge in earthen 
vessels, and we bear with their limitations and hope that 
they will bear with ours, but if we had our way we would 
all draw the line at the wooden ones. We professors do 
not ordinarily criticise one another. We recognize that 
there may be diversity of gifts and differences of adminis- 
tration. We see in these differences the evidence that a 
Faculty is an organization made up of human beings and 
not a machine. With students, on the other hand, the 
criticism of professors is a favorite pastime. I would not 
do too much to discourage it for it gives them pleasure and 
is, I dare say, profitable withal; for thereby is sometimes 
revealed an interest in theological study and a zeal for the 
richer development of a department which otherwise might 
not have attracted attention. But I think I may say that 
when a Board of Directors undertakes the work of aca- 
demic evaluation it enters upon a somewhat difficult task. 
It is so hard to standardize professorial efficiency. You 
may for example require a student to commit to memory a 
hundred lines of poetry every day, when the daily task of 
writing a hundred lines of poetry might seem unreasonable 
— the call for quantity endangering the quality of the out- 
put. Professors differ: one is a great teacher; another is 
a great writer; still another is a great scholar; some profes- 
sors are industriously busy during every waking moment 
of their lives and some produce the impression that they 
pass a great deal of their time in idleness. But let us not 
misjudge the seemingly idle man: incubation is not a pro- 
cess of violent activity and yet in the domain of natural 
history, under normal conditions, it is followed by very 
satisfactory results. I remember with reverence my teach- 
ers in this Seminary. I cannot say exactly what I learned 
from them. Much of the good I got came through my ad- 
miration of them. I watched them closely. I observed 
their methods. They gave me ideals. They made me say 



to m/self — “That is the way I should like to do my work” 
— and, in a humble way, that was how in later years I tried 
to do it. I thank God that 

“rigorous teachers seized my youth, 

And purged its faith, and trimm’d its fire, 

Show’d me the high, white star of Truth, 

There bade me gaze, and there aspire.” 

There were great professors in this Seminary in those 
days, and there are great professors in this Seminary now. 
I am an old man now and it is too late for me to take up 
a new branch of study, but there are young men in this 
Faculty who, when I hear them talk upon the subjects to 
which they are devoting their lives, make me wish that I 
was young again that I might sit at their feet and take 
up these studies under their leadership. 

There are many forms of professorial efficiency and 
there is a place in the theological seminary for different 
types of men; for men who give inspirational lectures and 
men who come to close quarters with their students in 
Socratic dialogue : for men who present truth in appetizing, 
didactic morsels, and men who steady us by their massive 
learning and judicial calmness: for men whose words are 
a clarion call to service and men who delight us with 
dialectical sword-play. 

I hope, therefore, that the standard of the kindergarten 
and the primary school will never be made the canon by 
which we are to judge the master workmen of the academic 

This Theological Seminary, as I have already said, is 
also a fortress. By this I mean, of course, that it is com- 
mitted to the defense of Christianity as a supernatural re- 
ligion. But I have already exceeded the time allotted to me 
and I can say only a word. When we affirm, however, that 
we are committed to the defense of a definite theological 
position we shall be exposed to criticism. “You claim,” 
they will say, “to be searching for truth, but you are really 
defending a foregone conclusion.” But does the defense of 



a belief necessarily carry with it insincerity in the possession 
of a belief. Does it necessarily imply a lack of learning or 
of logic or of honesty on the part of those who hold the 
belief? I cannot see that it does. I have never heard the 
learning or the logical power of a great advocate dispar- 
aged simply on the ground that he held a brief for a fore- 
gone conclusion. I can well understand the position of 
those who say “We have here no continuing conviction but 
we seek one to come and we need all our learning and logi- 
cal power in order that we may find it.” Our position, I 
confess, is somewhat different from this. We are in pos- 
session of certain definite convictions which are exposed to 
koJHCe. -fetl >£» VlfayJ Sckor^-Fsktk a,Y\c( 

t kj most searching inquiry can be employed in no better way 

than in the defense of these convictions. Of course, if it is 
a fault to believe that Christianity contains a certain definite 
body of knowledge we admit that we are justly open to 
criticism, but I do not believe that to be ever learning and 
never able to come to a knowledge of the truth is a sign 
of theological supremacy. The greatest issue at the pres- 
ent time is that which deals with supernatural Christianity. 
The great battlefields of religion are those of philosophy 
and history. I know of no more important service that 
this Seminary can render than the defense of historic Chris- 
tianity. Could men see this as I see it they would feel, 

I am sure, that the service which this Seminary has already 
rendered and that yet remains to be rendered by her Fac- 
ulty is worth all that the Seminary has cost, even though' 
a student had never darkened her doors. But that Prince- 
ton Seminary may do this work, as the men who are in her 
Faculty would like to have it done, she needs larger en- 
dowments. We are in need of the munitions of war and 
are looking to you, Dr. Stevenson, to do for Princeton what 
Lloyd George is doing for Great Britain in this regard. 
Princeton Seminary, in the Providence of God, is called to 
occupy a conspicuous place of honor in the defense of the 
faith once delivered to the saint. Will the Church enable 
her to meet the full measure of her responsibilities and take 
full advantage of her great opportunity ? 



May you have a long, happy and successful career, Mr. 
President, as the head of this institution and, under your 
guiding hand, may you see this seat of learning with an 
ever-increasing body of students, an enlarged curriculum 
and an adequate material equipment so far surpassing the 
glory of her former days that the friends and foes alike of 
historic Christianity, as they survey the great centers of 
theological learning and realize what this institution has 
done and will continue to do in defense of fundamental 
truth, may feel constrained to say — “There, there, in 
Princeton Theological Seminary, is to be seen the Gibral- 
tar of the Christian faith.” 

Bermuda. Francis L. Patton. 


Insert between the lines 12 and 13, page 80, Vol. No. 1. 

the following line : 

hostile attack and we feel that the ripest scholarship and the 


Directors, Trustees, Instructors, Friends of Princeton 
Seminary, — The office to which you have summoned me is 
one of exalted privilege, but of wide-reaching responsibil- 
ity. Knowing as I do the illustrious history of this noble 
institution; esteeming most highly the distinguished men 
who now serve as a Faculty; cherishing the truest regard 
for my honored predecessor in office and for the conspicu- 
ous service he has rendered this institution and the whole 
theological world ; expecting, as I confidently do, that 
Princeton on the basis of past achievement has a still larger 
mission in the advancement of our Lord’s kingdom, I am 
well aware that the Presidency of the Seminary is a high 
position with tremendous obligations, to meet which my 
dependence must be upon the sufficiency which is from 
God. One becomes all the more conscious of his utter in- 
sufficiency when he contemplates the appeal for greater 
service which is being made to all our theological colleges 
at this particular time. When the General Assembly 
founded a Seminary at Princeton it was in recognition of 
an irresistible demand. The supply of ministers was inade- 
quate, and their training was of an unsatisfactory character. 
There was needed an institution which would attract a 
larger number of men to the profession of preaching and 
which would at the same time give them a more thorough 
and complete preparation for this work of Christian leader- 
ship. For theological education, such men as Archibald 
Alexander, Ashbel Green, Samuel Miller, Eliphalet Nott 
and John Romeyn recognized this desideratum, — along 
with the knowledge of a permanent gospel — the same yes- 
terday, today and forever — there must be the knowledge of 
a time-spirit which is ever changing and projecting the new 

* An address delivered in the First Presbyterian Church of Prince- 
ton, Wednesday, October the 13th, 1915, on the occasion of inauguration 
as President of Princeton Theological Seminary and as Professor of 
the History of Religion and Christian Missions. 


occasions which teach new duties. The plan adopted for 
study and attainments did not fix rigid molds for the manu- 
facture of an unvarying type of minister, but provided for 
such variations as the views and habits of teachers and the 
requirements of experience might suggest. Under this 
commission the Seminary has endeavored to serve each 
“present age”. The modern age, which is considered as 
being altogether unique and which is making radical de- 
mands along every line of thought, insists that in theologi- 
cal education there should be a complete readjustment, if 
not a sweeping revolution. The Davidic champion of ad- 
vance regards the traditional training as a Saul’s armor, 
and it is proposed to scrap-heap the conventional Seminary 
curriculum as the synonym of futility and ineptitude and 
establish an up-to-date system that will be of a piece with 
the pedagogical experiments inflicted upon the secondary 
school and college and with the tentative sociological ven- 
tures of popular unrest. Much of the criticism passed upon 
theological seminaries, and much of the demand for change, 
reflect the confusions which characterize the whole field 
of education. The appeal for greater service, however, is 
of a more distinct and compelling character when it comes 
direct from the Church, whose servant the Seminary is. 
This institution bears as her official title “The Theological 
Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.” 
While her gates are open to students of all Christian 
churches, and as a matter of fact her service has been of 
the widest interdenominational character as our Alumni 
Catalogue records, nevertheless by foundation anchorage, by 
legal ties and by covenanted obligation this Seminary is 
bound to heed the demands of the age as interpreted and 
emphasized by the Presbyterian Church. What are these 
demands? Four of them may well challenge our attention. 

(1) The first and most fundamental demand, one that 
has always been advanced but is now appealing for clearer 
recognition, is for trained ministers of apostolic character. 
The call now, as at the beginning of the Seminary’s life a 
hundred years ago, is for “a succession of men at once 


qualified for and thoroughly devoted to the work of the 
gospel ministry, who with various endowments suiting them 
to different stations in the Church of Christ, may all possess 
a portion of the spirit of the primitive propagators of the 
gospel, prepared to make every sacrifice, to endure every 
hardship and to render every service which the promotion 
of pure and undefiled religion may require.” A short time 
ago the Board of Missionary Preparation interrogated lead- 
ers of the Church out on the field as to courses of study 
most essential in training for mission service. The reply 
came back, a course in Spartanics, one in Vitalics, and an- 
other in Humanics. This meant that the greatest demand 
was for men of heroic mold, abounding in spiritual life and 
well acquainted with the needs and aspirations of their fel- 
low-men. Such traits, however desirable, are not hot-house 
growths. No theological nursery in a three year course 
has as yet been able to produce them. They must be traced 
back to the curriculum of the home, even to the discipline 
and stamina of preceding generations. However, it is ex- 
pected, and the expectation is most reasonable, that our 
seminaries should be of such a character that they will ap- 
peal to the strong young men of the Church, enlist them 
for the work of the ministry and give them that spiritual 
culture which the Church — which the great Head of the 
Church — deems essential. This Seminary, like others, was 
founded to increase the number of amply qualified minis- 
ters. This does not mean that with superb equipment the 
best theological education would be given the men who 
might be inclined to matriculate, but that the character of 
the institution would be such as to challenge in the name 
of Christ the choicest spirits from the ranks of the Church, 
and thereby secure a competent ministry. To this end the 
Seminary must ever be mindful of her high calling as “a 
nursery of vital piety”, to use almost forgotten language, 
as well as of sound theological learning. This demand may 
seem very commonplace, and its emphasis entirely super- 
fluous, but it was not so regarded by the founders of this 


institution who were careful to declare it as an object of 
primary importance since “without the spirit of enlightened 
devotion and fervent piety all other acquisitions would be 
of comparatively little worth.” They also went so far as to 
delineate the path of duty for professors and students in 
fostering true experimental religion and unreserved de- 
votedness to God. Because this demand is so primary and 
self-evident, is doubtless the reason why it has never been 
fully met by any seminary. I say this not in any uncharit- 
able or censorious spirit, but only to voice the mind of the 
Church. A special committee appointed by our General 
Assembly to take into account “a wide-spread dissatisfac- 
tion with the methods and results of theological education” 
reported that one of the weak points in seminary training, 
while making due allowance for varying conditions and 
unwarranted criticism, is “Lack of spiritual culture”. Not 
that this is wholly neglected, but it does not hold the place 
that its importance demands. One chief cause of this weak- 
ness is the assumption that the atmosphere of a school of 
sacred learning is necessarily conducive to spiritual health, 
and that the handling of the gospel will of itself feed and 
strengthen the soul. Such assumption and neglect of the 
truth’s appropriation sends out ministers who have been 
characterized as being like the camel which carries whole- 
some provision while feeding on thistles, men able to pre- 
pare food for others while dying of starvation; handing 
out the most nutritious viands with fingers gaunt with 
famine; inviting men to a feast in tones hollow of death; 
writing essays on faith in the dungeon of Giant Despair. 
Another cause of this lack of spiritual culture is over-oc- 
cupation with class-room work and premature ministerial 
functions. Each department of instruction, groaning under 
the burden of its indispensability, clamors for the maxi- 
mum of available time, while the American utilitarian 
spirit is holding out all sorts of allurements for the pursuit 
of practical efficiency. Consequently there is little time, or 
leisure, or interest left for the lost art of reflection, for 



mental readjustment, for spiritual reenforcement, for that 
upbuilding of the soul, which the intending minister is soon 
to advocate before a people distracted by the confusion and 
complexity of modern life. Jesus trained His apostles, not 
in Jerusalem amid the passing throngs where life was most 
congested and intense, but out in the quiet of the country, 
by the seashore, on the hillside where there were constant 
reminders of heaven, of the relation of things seen to the 
unseen and eternal, and where there was time and oppor- 
tunity for the appropriation and application of truth in all 
its bearings and the life of the soul could receive its proper 
nourishment and equipment for spiritual leadership. Our 
city friends would doubtless concede to Princeton the ad- 
vantage of quiet location, the atmosphere of high ideals 
and a freedom from the bustle and distraction which how- 
ever conducive to action are not contributary to that con- 
centration of thought and purpose, that studious and pray- 
erful discipline of soul, to that spiritual mastery, exempli- 
fied in Christ and His apostles, and which is essential to 
ministerial preparedness. However, the problem is not so 
much one of environment as of recognized responsibility. 
The Assembly report to which I have alluded summons 
our theological seminaries to foster the spiritual life of 
the students, that they may become men of vision, of prayer, 
of reality, men of God, and it places responsibility upon 
professors, who are not called to be merely teachers to 
train the mind and to communicate the largest supply of 
highly specialized knowledge, but who are commissioned 
as pastors, that with an intimate personal acquaintance 
with the students, they may deal with the souls committed 
to their charge as those who must give account to the great 
Shepherd of the sheep. 

(2) The Church is also demanding of our seminaries that 
they send out men of large positive faith and all aflame 
with a vital message. Influences are at work in the world 
which strike at the foundations of Christian belief, and 
which some suppose have left traditional theology with 


no certain or secure basis. Criticism it is claimed, if it 
has not disproved divine revelation altogether, has so modi- 
fied our conception of it that the Bible like other sacred 
books is but the record of the spiritual progress made by 
a race with a genius for religion, science has so trans- 
formed our views of nature, we are told, that the super- 
natural and miraculous, if not entirely outlawed, must be 
redefined in terms of evolution, while philosophy with its 
Hegelian interpretation of the world casts serious doubt 
upon the reality of sin and the personal existence of God. 
Unquestionably there are changed currents of thought with 
which the ministry of our day in all honesty and earnest- 
ness must reckon. What is the trend of these currents? 
Is it towards the rocks of shipwrecked faith, or is it an 
incoming tide of truth that will lift a struggling soul 
above threatening shoals and sunken perils and land it tri- 
umphantly in a sure haven of certitude? There are those 
who would surrender entirely to the modern mental en- 
vironment, accommodating Christian doctrine to the present 
style of thinking. The essence of Christianity is to be 
extracted from its ancient formulas and placed in a new 
solution of current concepts. The Apostle John is ac- 
cused of Philonic metaphysic and Paul of Rabbinical 
exegesis, all of which must be eliminated in order to pre- 
cipitate a sediment of truth that will dissolve into Hegel’s 
idealism or Eucken’s activism and into a desupernaturalized 
interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus the accommodation 
which was the vice of past theology is made a present 
intellectual virtue. However, the traditional theology has 
had this to its credit, a clear positive and soul satisfying 
faith and a definite, consistent and compelling message. 
Can the compromise with present-day thought claim as 
much? Whether it be in the definitions of creeds, in the 
phraseology of our universities, or in the language of the 
street, the gospel to be preached must be stated in terms 
of faith and conviction and spiritual reality. This whole 
demand for a restatement of the gospel has at least this 



value — that it requires the minister to make the unchang- 
ing message apprehensible to the modern mind. The pulpit 
dialect and emphasis of fifty or a hundred years ago would 
not command an intelligent or popular hearing to-day. 
A growing preacher cannot be tied down to the verbal 
repetition of old sermons. Any mature minister who has 
the fortitude to read through the pulpit discourses to which 
the people of his first charge were subjected, will have a 
new revelation of the patience of the saints and of the 
charity which believeth all things and endureth all things. 
A ministry for our time signifies a training which will 
secure the clear and complete apprehension of the saving 
truths of redemption as contained in the Holy Scriptures, 
the appropriation of their soul-satisfying power, and the 
ability to press their appeal upon the minds and hearts of 
present day people in the midst of the intellectual currents 
and emotional tides which are sweeping them along. This 
as we well know, cannot be accomplished by segregating 
students, by keeping them in the atmosphere of credulity, 
or by encouraging the spirit of suspicion and fear. There 
is required the immunity of the trained physician who 
knows the disease and the remedy, and is confident of a 
cure. Such confidence is not obtained by ignoring or by 
discounting all the disintegrating tendencies of modern 
thought, but by facing them with unflinching honesty and 
courage and with indefatigable labor of mind and of heart 
under the guidance of teachers who have fought their way 
through on their knees to the position of an attested faith 
and an irresistible testimony. It has been the glory of 
this institution that she has been thorough and fearless in 
her scholarship, and has sought to place and to hold men 
on the one and only foundation — the living Christ — God 
manifest in the flesh, the power of God unto salvation from 
sin and endless death by His atoning, expiatory sacrifice, 
through faith, and has furthermore, endeavored to send out 
ambassadors who know Christ as their divine Saviour, 
whose glory is in His cross, and who like the primitive 


propagators of the faith are ready to hazard their lives for 
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

(3) The demand for such a ministry accords with a 
kindred demand, i.e., for a theological education equal to 
the social as well as the individual application of the gospel. 
This Seminary was called into existence soon after the great 
awakening of 1800, and her founders for the most part had 
come under the sweep of that inrushing tide of spiritual 
life. It was natural, therefore, that they should seek to 
train a body of men who would be not only lovers and de- 
fenders of the truth as it is in Jesus, but “friends of re- 
vivals of religion”, to use their own language. It is not 
surprising that from the beginning of her history to the 
present time, this school of theological learning has been 
in warm sympathy with those special evangelistic efforts, of 
which it can be said, “mightily grew the word and pre- 
vailed”. There have graduated from our halls notable 
evangelists of the Church at home and abroad, and we 
recall with special satisfaction that in the revival of 1857 
a prominent factor and most gifted advocate was Dr. 
James W. Alexander. This revival spirit for which the 
institution has always stood enables us to hear with some 
degree of distinctness the present day appeal of the Church 
for an evangelistic ministry, for that preaching of the word 
which our standards recognize as the effectual means under 
the power of the Spirit of convincing and converting sin- 
ners. When theological education loses its soul-converting 
power, when it has no message of regeneration and no ex- 
pectation of definite, immediate supernatural results, it has 
forfeited all right of maintenance by the Church entrusted 
with the gospel of the new birth. But the seminary train- 
ing, which must recognize the primary obligation to give 
the gospel to every creature, must also contemplate the 
teaching of all things which Jesus commanded. Individual 
evangelization, sooner or later, compels social amelioration. 
In the foreign field a new disciple cannot be wholly Chris- 
tian while subject to a heathen environment. When a 



man turns from the darkness of savage barbarism to the 
light of the cross, the missionary who would train him 
must take into account a wretched, corrupt, polygamous 
home, social customs that are vile, together with many 
superstitions and cruel tribal practices; or in a country 
like India, he has to take into consideration the influences 
of the harem, and of caste and other hoary and degrading 
institutions. If he has any of the Good Shepherd’s compas- 
sion he will seek to safeguard Christ’s little ones, and to do 
so he will be compelled to fight the wolves of an unchristian 
and rapacious social order. Mission Boards recognize the 
necessity of sending out medical, educational, industrial and 
other agents whose work is largely of a social character. 
When we recognize this need abroad, we should not hesitate 
to give it generous consideration at home, and we will not 
if we are true descendants of John Calvin. We are prone 
to forget the reforms which that intrepid champion of the 
gospel brought about in Geneva in the interests of evan- 
gelical Christianity. The minutest detail of city govern- 
ment engaged his attention. He insisted on the removal 
of all filth from the houses and from the narrow and 
crooked streets; the markets were superintended and the 
sale of unhealthy food prevented ; low taverns and drinking 
shops were abolished; mendicancy on the streets was pro- 
hibited; a hospital and home for the poor was provided, 
and efforts were made to give useful employment to every 
man who could work. His motive in writing the Institutes 
was to show that the teachings of the Reformation were 
not subversive of sound morality and good government. 
The social significance of the teachings of Jesus, found in 
his conception of the kingdom of God, naturally lends it- 
self to the Calvinistic conception of the supremacy of 
God’s will in all departments and relations of life. It is a 
great mistake to suppose that an institution which still holds 
to the Reformed Theology has no interest in social problems 
and no gospel for their solution. When the Presbyterian 
Church wished to prepare a deliverance which should con- 


cern itself with the application of the gospel to the acqui- 
sition and use of wealth, to the relations between employer 
and employed and between capital and labor, and to the 
existence of unnecessary poverty in a land where there is 
more than enough for all, it designated one who had his 
training in this Seminary to take the responsibility for the 
issue of such a deliverance. So admirably was the service 
performed that the declaration adopted has commanded 
the assent of all who have the best interests of society at 
heart. I would not for one instant contend that this insti- 
tution, or in fact any other, is adequately responding to 
the demand of our day for a more complete and conscien- 
tious application of the principles of Jesus. The prevalence 
of gigantic social evils, lust, intemperance, greed, national 
vanity and race prejudice, the ghastly tragedy of “civilized 
warfare”, the enthronement of the war spirit, is a lurid 
commentary on twentieth century progress, and an in- 
exorable demand upon the Church to be the “moral guide 
of society” and upon the ministry to proclaim the holiness 
of God, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the sacrificial 
life imposed upon those who claim to appropriate the re- 
demptive issues of Christ’s cross. To glory in the cross 
as a means of salvation becomes a mockery when there is no 
glory in its power to crucify a man unto the world, and en- 
list him in self-sacrificing service for all whom Christ’s com- 
passion embraces. To overcome the evils of selfish compe- 
tition with the sacrificial ministry of Christ’s gospel, to 
establish a city of God in which there will be no slums is 
the task of the Church of the living God, which demands an 
especially qualified ministry, which it is the business of 
theological education to provide. 

(4) One more demand which the Church is making 
upon our theological seminaries is for a ministry that is not 
only equal to the local needs of city, town or country, but 
that has a national and international outlook and a hu- 
manity embracing passion. This demand is accentuated by 
the judgments of the Lord which are in the earth, by those 



crises which are determining what the coming civilization 
is to be if we are to have any at all. Nations have been 
brought so closely together that their moral and religious 
differences, as well as their social, economic and political 
divergencies are clearly recognized, and the question has 
become acute, what type of nationality and of character is 
to dominate mankind? The total inadequacy of a non- 
Christian culture is being demonstrated in oriental lands. 
The failure of a semi-Christian culture is forced upon the 
world’s attention by the gruesome slaughter of men who 
have a common religious heritage and should be living to- 
gether as brothers. What power can enable nations to 
dwell side by side and intermingle as one racial family, the 
strong bearing the infirmities of the weak and all working 
together in entire good will for the attainment of a com- 
mon destiny? The religion of Jesus is the only religion 
which contemplates this international problem, and claims 
to furnish the ideal and the power for its realization. Now, 
if ever, it should be insisted that Christianity shall be put 
to a fair and complete test by the application of its princi- 
ples to all departments and relations of life — home, foreign, 
social, industrial, commercial, national and racial — a test 
which has never yet been made, but which is laid down as 
being essential by Him who will have no divided allegiance, 
but must be crowned Lord of all. 

This demand is further emphasized by the opportunities 
for mission service which are being pressed upon the atten- 
tion of the Church. The openings for Christian investment 
at home and abroad have never been so large, so inviting 
and so promising, and to enter in as we should will tax the 
resources of the Church to the utmost limit. Along with 
this consideration we need to take into account the spiritual 
awakening with which many of our churches are being 
blest. It is a harvest time in the home field, as the records 
of the past few months will show, and such ingatherings 
broaden the vision of Christendom, enlarge the heart, and 
nerve the arm for world-wide reaping. To meet this situ- 


ation, which would have made the apostles quiver with 
eagerness and expectation, there is needed what brought 
this institution into existence a hundred years ago, — a more 
numerous and a better qualified ministry, a new apostolic 
company of men, like the children of Issachar, who have 
understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to 
do. In the training of such men this Seminary should take 
a peculiar interest and part. Let us never forget the mis- 
sionary spirit which founded and built up this institution, 
specifying as a dominant purpose that it should be “a nurs- 
ery for missionaries to the heathen and to such as are 
destitute of the stated preaching of the gospel, in which 
youth may receive that appropriate training which may lay 
a foundation for their ultimately becoming eminently quali- 
fied for missionary work.” The first student in the Semi- 
nary served the Church as a home missionary leading that 
noble succession, — the largest number of missionaries sent 
out by any institution in our land. Of every thirteen grad- 
uates, one has been a missionary. Since 1875 one out of 
every nine has gone into foreign mission service, and in 
recent classes the proportion has been as high as one out 
of every four. Of the twenty-four missions of the 
Presbyterian Church, two-thirds of them were founded by 
Princeton Seminary men. It was a son of Princeton who 
rallied the forces which brought into being the organized 
missionary life of our Church, Dr. E. P. Swift. He laid 
down the principle that Church courts are not merely for 
routine business and for litigation, but for the corporate 
prosecution of Christ’s commission to disciple the nations. 
It was because of the stirring appeal of another Princeton 
son, Dr. James W. Alexander, that the General Assembly 
declared in 1847, “The Presbyterian Church is a missionary 
society, the object of which is to aid in the conversion of 
the world, and every member of the Church is a member 
for life of said society and bound to do all in his power for 
the accomplishment of this object.” This spirit of mis- 
sions has been quickened by the blood of our martyrs, to the 



glorious company of whom there has recently been added 
another name, a graduate student, massacred in Armenia. 
The spirit of internationalism is being fostered today by 
the presence in our halls, among the students from thirty- 
one states and territories, of fifteen students from foreign 
lands. I mention this only to say that the missionary spirit 
of the Church and the demands growing out of it, Prince- 
ton has to a large extent encouraged and stimulated, and 
loyalty to our own sons and heirs compels us, the stewards 
of a large legacy of missionary interest, achievement and 
expectation, not only to conserve our apostolic estate, but to 
enlarge and enrich it, and do this by making ample pro- 
vision for the thorough and complete training, according to 
the highest standards, of those who are to engage in mis- 
sionary service. 

The guiding hand of God, who has so signally blessed 
and used this school of Theology in the years that are gone, 
would seem to have been conducting her into a realm of 
power and influence for such a time as this. Hers is a 
unique position of confidence because of a century’s faith- 
ful service, sending out more than six thousand men to 
minister in Christ’s name — a position of confidence because 
of a representative directorate and trusteeship, which knows 
and possesses the mind and spirit of the Church; because 
of a tried and trusted Faculty, — a united body — not easy to 
secure in these days of acute theological differences, and 
yet essential to a harmonious and prosperous stewardship; 
because of a multitude of alumni, scattered all over the 
world, and upon whose cooperation we may depend. These 
should be gathered into associations at strategic centers in 
order that the Seminary may be of service to her sons, and 
in order that they in turn may help to keep their Alma 
Mater young and vigorous, in touch with living issues. It 
is commonly supposed that our income is adequate for the 
financial burdens which the Church would place upon us. 
But although we may have enough for immediate suste- 
nance, we shall require a great deal more for the proper 



care of the increased number of students required for the 
waiting harvest fields of the earth, and for the enlarge- 
ment of departments which the more highly specialized 
work of the Church has made a necessity. Since we de- 
sire only the fruit that increaseth to the Church’s account, 
we are sure that broadminded and large-hearted and mis- 
sionary-consecrated Presbyterians will have fellowship with 
us in the matter of giving and receiving, and through some 
Epaphroditus there will be provided that aid which has the 
“odor of a sweet smell” to any institution that is much 
alive and growing. 

“I want to live” was the burden of Phillips Brooks’ 
thought shortly before he died, giving as his reason that the 
next twenty years would offer greater opportunities for the 
Christian minister than any other like period of history. 
For any time, but more particularly for the time just before 
us, there can be no higher, nobler calling than that of leading 
the forces which are to establish a kingdom of truth and 
goodwill, — the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, — which 
is to rule over all and endure forever. To train these leaders 
is a task whose grandeur and range engaged the three years’ 
service of the greatest of all teachers, and today challenges 
the largest investment of consecrated life for its adequate 
prosecution. And who is sufficient for these things ? Who can 
lead the leaders of the coming day, so that through them the 
knowledge of God shall cover the earth and the kingdom of 
His truth and love be established. Thanks be unto God, 
who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ and maketh 
manifest through us the savor of His knowledge in every 
place ; and to Him whose is the kingdom and the power, shall 
we give glory forever and ever. Amen. 

Princeton. J. Ross Stevenson. 


It is with sincere pleasure that I undertake to discharge 
the duty laid upon me by the Board of Directors in con- 
nection with your installation into the chair of Homiletics 
in this Seminary. With more than the usual and polite 
meaning of the words I offer you my hearty congratula- 
tions. I would at this time do more than felicitate you 
upon your election, and pray the blessing of Almighty God 
upon you and your labors in this Seminary. You have been 
greatly honored in the Church of your fathers. You have 
been chosen to the professorship of an important chair in 
this great theological school. You will have the inestimable 
privilege of intimate comradeship and fellowship with the 
rare men who constitute the faculty. 

The Board of Directors in seeking a successor to the 
great teachers who have filled the chair of Homiletics in 
Princeton Seminary have chosen you because of the dis- 
tinguished services you have rendered in eminent pulpits, 
and because of your qualifications to teach the subject of 
your department. Having heard you during the past sum- 
mer deliver a truly great course of lectures on the subject 
of preaching, I am the more competent, as representing the 
Board of Directors, to congratulate the Seminary on your 
coming to be a member of its faculty, and to give expres- 
sion to their high and confident hopes concerning the work 
you will be able to do. In consummating the election and 
carrying out the will of the Board of Directors, this in- 
auguration service is now held. 

The discipline of Homiletics has always had an honorable 
place in the curriculum of the Theological Seminary. There 
is no need to vindicate its rights here, nor to emphasize its 
proportionate importance, neither would it be fitting for 
me to enter into a discussion of the relation of Homiletics 
to Rhetoric nor to discriminate between the importance of 

* The charge to the Reverend J. .Ritchie Smith, D.D., on the occasion 
of inauguration as Professor of Homiletics in Princeton Theological 


regarding it as a science or as an art. The discipline has 
its recognized and sufficient place in the curriculum of this 
Seminary, and its usefulness is not questioned by any. 

In a peculiar and unique way the professor of this de- 
partment comes into an intimate and sympathetic under- 
standing of his students. The revelation that a student 
makes of his personality, his knowledge, and the method by 
which his mind works, as he externalizes his inner con- 
sciousness in the sermon he produces, is perhaps fuller and 
more intimate in this department than in any recitations he 
may make in other class rooms. A man can recite Hebrew 
or Greek or History or Theology, and give satisfaction to 
the professor, without revealing much of himself; but, as 
he brings his own interpretation of the Word of God in a 
sermon, he inevitably declares what manner of man he is. 
This gives to the professor of Homiletics great assistance 
in his dealing with individual students. 

I desire in the very brief time that ought to be used by 
me on this occasion to suggest two or three ideas which, I 
think, the present conditions in the life and work of the 
Church make worthy of your consideration. 

I would charge you, first, to teach students the supreme 
dignity and greatness of the office and functions of the 
ministry. Dr. Loetscher said a very true thing when he 
wrote “After all, the greatest problem of Homiletics is not 
the making of the sermon, but the making of the preacher.” 
The distinct preparation of a man for the ministry begins 
with the call of God to him in his own soul. The minister 
does not choose preaching as his profession in the same 
way and from the same motives that other men ordinarily 
choose their life work. However it comes — whether from 
an impulse that began at his mother’s knee, or from the 
knowledge of the world’s need pressed in upon his soul, or 
from the gradual crystalization of the vague yearnings of 
his heart into solemn conviction — ultimately, the man called 
of God comes to feel “necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is 
unto me if I preach not the gospel.” In the full, unre- 


served surrender he makes of his life and the totality of 
his powers, he is brought into the goodly fellowship of the 
prophets and apostles and martyrs, and into a new and 
closer relation with his Saviour. Like the true soldier, he 
awaits his orders as to where and when he will do his work. 
In the glory and privilege of the high calling, when his eyes 
have once seen the vision of his ministry as an ambassador- 
ship for Christ, he is ready to face discouragement, hard- 
ship, or death if need be, or live a sober, righteous and 
godly life in the midst of an ease-loving and worldly 

It is my belief that most students for the ministry come 
to the Seminary with this high ideal before them. The 
Professor of Homiletics has a peculiar opportunity and 
responsibility to keep this ideal undimmed and unfading. 
It is true that we hear from many quarters the statement 
that the power of the pulpit is waning and the interest in 
sermons is dead. God has not only pleased by the foolish- 
ness of preaching to save men. He has also made men so 
that they need and require the preaching of the gospel. As 
long as the heart has passions, as long as death breaks the 
sweetest ties of life and love, as long as the hope of im- 
mortal life burns in the human soul, so long will the world 
have need of men who have been set apart to a holy call- 
ing, and who are the representatives of God’s everlasting 
righteousness and infinite love. 

I charge you, in the second place, that you teach your 
students the essential elements of a sermon. In the multi- 
plicity of good works and workers, men are losing sight of 
what a sermon really is. In the feverish activity of the 
present age, in the appeals and clamors for recognition and 
appreciation from so many organizations and movements, 
the Church is being pressed to surrender the sermon from 
its services — to put in its stead something else, until the 
very sources of power and benevolence are endangered. 
An interesting talk on a question of ethics or morals or 
political righteousness is not a sermon. Neither is an ora- 


tion, nor a lecture, nor an essay a sermon. A sermon has 
been defined by Dr. Patton to be “a rhetorical organism 
evolved by a genetic process from a text of Scripture, and 
standing in vital and obvious relation to it.” It may have 
the learning and the force and the beauty of other forms of 
literature or elocution, but it is distinguished from them in 
that it is drawn from and depends upon a passage of Scrip- 
ture. It is a structure which is orderly and complete, hav- 
ing a beginning and a middle and an end. Its relation to 
the Scriptures is vital and essential. Sages and philoso- 
phers, even in pagan and heathen countries, can praise the 
excellence of truth and point to the shining heights of 
purity and virtue, but only the preacher of the gospel of 
Jesus Christ can show the way and the power in which 
sinful men are to walk to attain these things. 

There is an unfailing freshness about the sermon that 
truly sets forth the thought or the doctrine or the duty 
which the Holy Spirit meant to teach in that particular 
text. The serious life work of the preacher is preaching. 
There is a vital relation between the pulpit and the doc- 
trine of justification by faith. In the Protestant Church 
the preacher has no authority nor sanctity except as he 
proclaims the Word of the Lord. Life is too short, and 
death is too near for the minister of the gospel to fail to 
preach a sermon as the opportunity is given to him. 

I charge you, in the third place, that you teach your stu- 
dents how to preach the Word of God to sinful men. In 
order to preach with power they must believe the Word of 
God. They must preach as if they believed the Word, and 
preach so as to lead others to believe and obey. Here every 
talent and all the strength and time and patience you have, 
and all the skill that comes from your knowledge of the 
individual student, will not be too much. It may seem 
presumptuous for me to make suggestions to you, but I 
venture to make one that I am assured will meet with your 
approval. It is, that the students be required to preach as 
much as possible during their course. The artist must learn 
technique as well as understand theories. 


Finally, I charge you to be true to the New Testament 
conception of preaching; to be true to your own high ideals 
of preaching which you have been able to hold and manifest 
through the years; to be true to the needs of the sinful 
world; to be true to these young men who have come to 
this institution for their preparation, whose usefulness on 
earth, and whose reward in heaven, will depend, in some 
measure, upon the way you teach them to preach the ever- 
lasting gospel. 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 

W. L. McEwan. 


It is with mingled emotions that I assume in this public 
and formal manner the duties of the office to which I have 
been called. I am sensible of the honor, I am grateful 
for the privilege of service, I am mindful of the responsibil- 
ity. And as I consider the importance of the work, and 
call to mind the learned and godly men who have filled and 
adorned this chair, men whose memory is among the choicest 
treasures of an institution so rich in memories, I am con- 
scious of my own unworthiness. 

I am bound to Princeton by a chain of gracious and 
sacred associations that stretches back to the days of early 
youth. I think of my College and Seminary training re- 
ceived in this place; of frequent visits in later years; of 
the uniform kindness shown me by the authorities of the 
Seminary; of my classmates and friends, Benjamin B. War- 
field and George T. Purves, called to the service of the 
Seminary, and discharging the duties of their office with 
conspicuous honor and fidelity; of my sons educated here; 
of my father, who gave this institution so large a place in 
his thought, his love, his ministry; of the work of the 
past year, made easy and delightful by the cordial good 
will of the governing boards, the faculty, the whole student 
body; and under the spell of these grateful and inspiring 
recollections I feel that Princeton to me is home. 

The occasion suggests, even prescribes, our theme : The 
Place of Homiletics in the Training of the Minister. Four 
years ago my predecessor, Dr. Loetscher, treated a similar 
theme in his inaugural address — Homiletics as a Theological 
Discipline; and the field was so ably and thoroughly sur- 
veyed that it would be superfluous as well as presumptuous 
to attempt to trace again the line of thought which was 
then pursued. I shall essay the simpler and easier task of 

* Inaugural Address. 



discussing some of the more obvious and practical aspects 
of the subject, and indicating the methods of study and 
training that may be employed. 

We shall consider first the nature of Homiletics, then its 
relation to other branches of theological discipline; and 
close with a brief study of methods. 

i. The nature of Homiletics. It is both a science and an 
art. Science is primarily concerned with the acquisition of 
knowledge, art with the use of knowledge. Science is the 
root of art, art is the fruit of science. No art accomplishes 
worthy results that is not based upon scientific principles; 
no science is turned to practical account except through the 
medium of art. Art is science at work. There are depart- 
ments of theological study which are purely scientific. 
Though the end which they are to serve be not forgotten, 
they do not provide or even directly contemplate the means 
by which the end may be attained. They do not undertake 
to show how the knowledge which they furnish is to be put 
to service. That is the task of Homiletics. 

The actual content of Homiletics as a science, the con- 
tribution which it makes to the common stock of knowledge, 
is meagre. Regarded as a branch of rhetoric, it simply 
recognizes the laws and principles which regulate all forms 
of oratory and composition, and applies them to the sermon. 
Clearness, force and beauty are everywhere to be sought, 
and always by the use of the same means. There is indeed 
a marked distinction between the sermon and other forms 
of public address in two respects: (a) the preacher has a 
fixed and definite message, which he is not at liberty to 
alter. He is bound by the terms of his commission, (b) he 
must seek a definite spiritual end. Both means and end 
are prescribed. But these differences evidently concern 
rather the ethical quality than the literary form of the 
sermon. It is plain that if Homiletics is distinguished from 
rhetoric, little remains that may be called scientific. Since it 
draws its material from other sources, indeed, and its form 
from rhetoric, we might speak of it as a science of method. 


And here of course we touch, if we do not cross, the 
borderline between science and art. 

Homiletics is related far more intimately and directly 
to the application than to the acquisition of knowledge. 
That is to say, it is predominantly an art rather than a 
science. It teaches men how to use the knowledge that they 
gather from every quarter. The main elements that enter 
into preaching are the message, the man, the method. What 
is the relation of Homiletics to each of them? 

(1) It is not the province of Homiletics to convey or 
impart the mesage. That is the function of Exegesis, of 
Biblical and Systematic Theology. Homiletics presumes the 
message. (2) It is the law of the kingdom that God speaks 
through man. The Word became flesh. The message is 
given to the man, the man must be prepared to deliver the 
message. With this preparation the several departments 
of Practical Theology are immediately concerned, and the 
professors should sustain a pastoral relation to the students. 
Homiletics deals not merely with the formal rules of rhet- 
oric, but with methods of study, with modes of life, with 
habits and purposes and motives, as these are all involved 
in the training of the minister for his high calling in Christ 
Jesus. (3) Beyond the general discipline of mind and 
heart for the work of the ministry, there is need of special 
training for the duty of preaching the Word. How may 
the truth be most clearly and effectively presented? That 
is the question of method which Homiletics attempts to 

2. The relation of Homiletics to other branches of theo- 
logical discipline. 

It may be said in general, as has been already suggested, 
that it is the function of Homiletics to show how the truth 
acquired in other departments of study may be put to ser- 
vice; translated from terms of thought to terms of life; 
converted into character and conduct. This opens the ques- 
tion of the relation of action to knowledge. There is no 
room for detailed discussion of so large a theme; we can 



only indicate the direction in which the discussion might 
proceed, (a) Action is the test of knowledge, defines its 
boundaries, determines its value. Ideas vague and unde- 
fined appear magnificent, as objects loom up large and im- 
posing in the mist. A little water makes a great cloud of 
steam. A little knowledge swells to vast conceit. The 
wisest of men in his own esteem is he who has just crossed 
the threshold of learning. He says in the words of the 
Psalmist, though for a different reason, I have more under- 
standing than all my teachers. Condense the vapor, apply 
the knowledge, and its real bulk and utility are seen. 

(b) Through action knowledge is mastered, becomes 
really ours, is made obedient to our will. Knowledge is a 
tool that we learn to use by using it. Knowledge used is 
power. We get possession of it by putting it to work. 
Then it becomes our servant. We learn the general principle 
by applying it to particular instances. He that will do shall 
know, is the law. It is not knowledge stored up idly in 
the brain, but knowledge linked to the will, knowledge at 
the tip of the tongue, at the ends of the fingers, that is 
really ours. We learn by doing. So Emerson reminds us : 
“Skill to do comes of doing; knowledge comes by eyes al- 
ways open, and working hands ; and there is no knowledge 
that is not power.” 

(c) Through action knowledge is transmuted into char- 
acter. Knowledge of itself has no ethical quality. But as 
soon as we begin to use it, we enter the sphere of relations, 
motives, purposes, that is, the sphere of morals. One of 
our Lord’s most weighty and pregnant sayings has its ap- 
plication here. “There is nothing from without the man, 
that going into him can defile him; but the things which 
proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.” 
It is not the knowledge that we gain, but the use to which 
we put it, that honors or defiles. 

(d) Through action knowledge is made the minister of 
God in the service of men. Knowledge alone is barren. 
Knowledge is fruitful when it is allied to action. It is the 


uniform and emphatic teaching of Scripture that all gifts 
and attainments must be measured and valued by their 
utility, the service which they render to the kingdom of 
God. Knowledge for its own sake has no place in the 
Christian life. Nothing exists for itself. Everything has 
its relations, its responsibilities. In the Old Testament 
wisdom is concrete and practical, beginning in the fear of 
God, and issuing in a godly life. It is knowledge turned to 
character and conduct, and enlisted in the service of God 
and man. When our Lord gave his disciples an example 
of humility and service in the washing of their feet, he 
said to them: “If ye know these things, blessed are ye if 
ye do them.” Blessedness is nowhere attached to knowledge 
alone. “To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and 
doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Paul gives the first place 
among the Christian graces to love, because love is the grace 
that serves, and therefore wears the likeness of the Master, 
who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and 
humbled himself even unto the death of the cross for the 
redemption of men. Usefulness is the standard by which 
every gift and grace of Christian character is tested. 
“Knowledge puffeth up, love buildeth up.” Mere knowledge 
acts upon a man like a pair of bellows, inflating him with 
self conceit and vanity; makes of him a bag of wind, 
swollen, empty, useless. Love builds up in himself and in 
others the temple of a godly character and life. 

In harmony with this teaching of the Scripture our 
Form of Government affirms as one of the first principles 
of our faith that “truth is in order to goodness.” The 
religion of the Bible is singular among the great religions 
of the world in making the preaching and teaching of the 
truth the central feature of its worship, and the main func- 
tion of its ministry. Religion is essentially a matter not 
of form but of faith, not of ritual but of righteousness, 
not of sacrifice but of service. Under the old covenant 
priests and prophets were teachers, and in the later years 
of Jewish history the synagogue was established for the 



religious instruction of the people. Under the new cov- 
enant the preaching of the Word is the duty enjoined by 
the risen Lord upon his disciples. The more closely the 
church approaches the New Testament norm, the more 
highly is the pulpit exalted. The minister is a preacher, 
not a priest. 

If this be true, it determines the answer to a question 
with which we are profoundly concerned — What is the 
primary purpose of Seminary training? It is not scholar- 
ship, but efficiency in the work of the ministry, the service 
of the kingdom of God. To that efficiency scholarship 
contributes an important element ; but it may never be made 
an end in itself. If truth is in order to goodness, scholar- 
ship is in order to service. There are men whose lives are 
devoted to scholarly pursuits, bounded by the four walls 
of the study. The church has need of them, and their 
work is of inestimable value. But they too have before 
them a higher aim than the mere amassing of knowledge 
for their own enrichment. They are set for the defense 
and confirmation of the gospel. They provide munitions 
of war for those who are engaged upon the field of battle. 
Their books are arsenals. Though scholarship may be the 
immediate purpose of their labor, the ultimate purpose is 
service. For such men abundant provision is made, and 
every facility is afforded them to pursue their studies. 

But great scholars are few. For exceptional men special 
opportunities are properly furnished. But it is the main 
function of the Theological Seminary to train the average 
man for the average pulpit. The great work of the church 
and of the kingdom is not done in cloistered retreats, where 
great scholars, in Milton’s phrase, “behold the bright coun- 
tenance of truth in the quiet and still air of delightful 
studies”; or in splendid cathedrals, where eloquent orators 
hold the rapt attention of listening thousands: but in a 
multitude of humble manses, often scantily furnished with 
books, and in modest sanctuaries, where men unknown to 
fame, of ordinary gifts and attainments, break the bread 
of life to meagre congregations. 


In accordance with this principle, this test of utility to 
which all things must submit and by which all things are 
measured, Homiletics undertakes to show how the knowledge 
gathered from every source, within and without the range 
of seminary training, may be turned to practical account, 
may be enlisted in the service of the kingdom of God. 

The knowledge acquired elsewhere is sifted, tested, 
measured here. The studies of the entire curriculum are 
passed in review. Though Exegesis and Theology and 
Church History and Apologetics are not directly taught, yet 
the material which they provide, so far as it appears in the 
sermon, must be examined with critical care. And as 
everything that the student has learned may find a place 
in the pulpit, the professor of Homiletics must be prepared 
to pass judgment upon it all. The man who holds this 
chair should not only be a master of the art of preaching, 
but his studies should cover the whole range of theological 
science. He cannot of course become an expert in every 
department, but he should be sufficiently acquainted with 
all branches of sacred learning to know, in the case of every 
sermon that is presented, whether the argument is logi- 
cally developed, whether the illustrations are apt, whether 
the statements are true, whether the doctrine is Scriptural. 
He must be prepared to examine, to question, to 
challenge, to defend at a moment’s notice, any position 
that may be taken by any member of the class on any sub- 
ject; from the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word, or 
the construction of a sentence, to the most profound problem 
in philosophy or theology. He must be able to distinguish 
truth from error at a glance. Of the questions that are 
raised in other classrooms how many are there that may 
not be sprung upon him? And as there is no department 
of knowledge, in history, science, art, literature, from which 
the pulpit does not draw its material, the man who is fully 
equipped for this position should take all knowledge as 
his province. All that other men teach he is called to 
examine, to criticize, to approve or condemn. He is the 


inspector general of the Seminary course. Surely upon no 
man does the question press more heavily, Who is sufficient 
for these things? And no man has greater need of the 
strength and comfort of the assurance that our sufficiency 
is from God. 

It follows again that as it is the province of Homiletics to 
show how the knowledge gained in all the other departments 
may be put to service, it unites them in the bond of a com- 
mon purpose. So numerous and varied are the branches 
of theological education that there is need of some unifying 
and coordinating principle that shall reduce them to a single 
system. The several studies which have a place in the cur- 
riculum may seem to be without connection or relation; 
and each classroom may appear to be conducting a separate 
and independent work. It is hard for the student to recog- 
nize the unity of the Seminary course as he is hurried from 
one study to another. He is apt to feel that subjects 
in which he is not particularly interested may safely be 
neglected while he gives himself to those which are more 
congenial. It is the office of Homiletics to keep constantly 
before the mind of the student the common end which all 
his studies are designed to serve; to point out the place 
and value of every study in its relation to the lifework of 
the minister; to show how they may all be used, and used 
together, in the preaching of the Word. It turns the several 
streams of theological learning into a common channel. It 
indicates that the practical aim of every department is 
precisely the same, and shows how the knowledge acquired 
in every classroom may be turned to account in the pulpit. 
The unity of the course is seen when it appears how all 
departments are knit together in the bond of a common 
purpose, a purpose to which each contributes an important 
part. This surely is not the least of the services which 
Homiletics renders to the training of the minister. 

Thus intimately related are the theoretical and practical 
branches of Seminary instruction. The practical alone 
would lack substance, material, content ; for they deal chiefly 


with the results obtained in other departments. They de- 
pend upon Exegesis and Theology and all those studies 
which are scientific in their nature, and are concerned pri- 
marily with the investigation of truth. The theoretical 
alone would lack adequate aim and motive, would remain de- 
tached from life, without product or result. Here as every- 
where practice alone is blind, theory alone is barren. Theory 
is the mind that guides, practice is the hand that shapes. The 
intelligent mind and the skillful hand must work together, 
and if either fails the task remains undone. 

3. Finally we turn to consider the methods that may be 
employed in the study and practice of Homiletics. They are 
the familiar methods which have been tested and approved 
by long experience. The principles of Homiletics as a 
science are taught by textbook and lecture, and are im- 
mediately reduced to practice. For Homiletics as we have 
seen is far more an art than a science, and art is essentially 
the application of the principles of science. Art is not 
necessarily artificial. It seeks not to fetter nature, but to 
set it free; not to supplant but to develop. If it is rightly 
directed, it puts a man in possession of himself, teaches 
him how to use his powers to the best advantage, with the 
greatest freedom and effect. 

Each class is drilled once a week in the preparation and 
delivery of sermons. These are criticised by the students 
as well as by the professor, and the instructor in elocution 
is invited to pass judgment upon the delivery. There are 
several points to which criticism is specially directed. 

(a) The exposition of the text. Sound exegesis lies at 
the root of good preaching. The text must be studied 
minutely, word by word, that its precise meaning may be 
discovered; then in its historical or doctrinal setting; then 
in its relation to the whole scheme of Scripture truth. 
Every fact is part of a great history, every doctrine is 
part of a great system. No text is thoroughly understood 
until it has been studied in this three-fold aspect — in itself, 
in its context, in the place that it holds in the course of 



revelation. And it must be remembered that every text 
has an individuality of its own, has its distinctive place 
and message. To respect that individuality, to suffer the 
text to speak its own peculiar word, is to secure freshness 
and variety in preaching, and to adhere to the teaching 
of the Scripture. There is no perversion that may not 
find support in isolated verses of Scripture, detached from 
the general trend of Bible teaching. 

(b) The analysis of the theme. The text furnishes the 
theme; the theme must be developed. This is often the 
most laborious part of the preacher’s task, to marshal his 
thoughts in logical order, with cumulative power, so as 
to drive home a single impression. The clearness, the force, 
the effect of the sermon depend upon it in immense degree. 
Are the thoughts of the preacher an orderly array, going 
on from strength to strength, or a disconnected jumble 
without unity, system, or proportion? That is a question 
of vital importance not merely to the artistic or literary 
quality of the sermon, but to its power of instruction and 
appeal. All men are sensible of the force of logic, even 
though they are ignorant of its rules and forms. It is the 
purpose of analysis to draw out, develop, illustrate the 
message of the text in the most illuminating, impressive, 
and convincing way. 

(c) The application. It is the task of the preacher to 
translate the general into the particular, to apply eternal 
and unchangeable truth to the special needs of his own 
generation. The word spoken many centuries ago, what 
message has it for the men of today? In face of the 
changes that have passed upon the world, political, social, 
industrial, moral, religious, is the old law still valid? And 
if it is, how is it related to our modern life? How shall 
it be interpreted, and how applied to these new conditions 
that have arisen? For every age in turn the truth has its 
special accent and emphasis. How enormously extended, 
for example, is the scope of the Eighth Commandment, 
when we consider the vast and complicated fabric of mod- 


ern trade and commerce. New problems emerge. The 
principle remains the same, but there is created an endless 
variety of applications unknown before. The chain 
lengthens, but it holds. 

It is evident how wide is the range of topics that may 
be treated in the pulpit. “The Scriptures principally 
teach what man is to believe concerning God and what 
duty God requires of man.” Nothing that concerns God 
or man is foreign to the preacher. He must seize upon 
those aspects of the truth which the times especially re- 
quire, and drive them home with all the power he can 

Attention is called of course to the cultivation of style, 
which should be vivid, striking, picturesque. Everybody 
loves pictures. God paints them everywhere, on earth 
and sea and sky. Jesus taught by parables, and a parable 
is a picture. The preacher should not be morbidly afraid 
of sensationalism. There is a true and a false sensation- 
alism. They are distinguished by their motives — one seeks 
the glory of God, and the other the glory of the preacher; 
by the means employed — one uses the truth, the other uses 
anything that may serve its purpose; by their results — one 
awakens, arouses, convicts, converts; the other kindles a 
momentary flame of interest that soon dies out in darkness. 
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” The preacher ought 
to make a sensation, ought to. aim at making a sensation; 
for it is his mission to turn men from sin to God, to re- 
construct society, to turn the world upside down. The 
prophets were decried and denounced as sensationalists, 
so was John the Baptist, so was Jesus, so were the apostles. 
The imminent danger and besetting sin of the pulpit is 
not sensationalism, but dulness, sheer deadly dulness. 

An important branch of training is the correction of 
faults of style and manner before they harden into habits. 
We have this gospel treasure in earthen vessels, indeed; 
but some vessels are ill shaped, unsightly, unsuitable, others 
are fair to the eye and meet for the master’s use. The 

1 12 


oil of the sanctuary like Mary’s ointment should have the 
alabaster box. 

In addition to the regular work of the classes; three 
elective courses are offered: 

1. The Work of the Pastor. This is undertaken at the 
request of the Professor of Practical Theology, to whose 
department it properly belongs, because he thought it might 
be of interest and value to have the subject treated by one 
who was fresh from the field. 

2. Great Preachers and Missionaries. Last year six 
great preachers were studied, representing different schools 
of thought and methods of presenting the truth — Frederick 
W. Robertson, Alexander Maclaren, Phillips Brooks, 
Charles H. Spurgeon, Henry Ward Beecher, and Dwight 
L. Moody. This year by request of the President of the 
Seminary we shall include the lives of the great missionaries, 
and William Carey and David Livingstone will be studied. 

3. An advanced class in Homiletics last year studied the 
Epistle of James. This year we take up the Epistle to the 
Philippians. The Greek Testament is followed with care- 
ful and minute exegesis of the text, always with a homiletic 
purpose in view. How may this material be used in the 
pulpit is the question with which we are constantly con- 
cerned. And not in this class only, but throughout the 
whole course of instruction, emphasis is laid upon the 
value of expository preaching, the systematic instruction of 
the congregation in the Scripture. 

The great end of preaching is held up constantly before 
the students, which is that men be born again through 
the Word, and sanctified through the Word. The con- 
version of sinners and the sanctification of believers, unto 
the glory of God, that is the purpose of our ministry. 
And underlying, sustaining, controlling, inspiring all our 
ministry must be the power and passion of the Cross. 
“Whom we preach” — not a doctrine, a truth, a system, 
but a Person. It is not the cross but the Crucified that 
saves. It is not the word printed or preached, but the 


Divine Word, incarnate for the sake of men, that is the 
power of God unto salvation. It is the duty and the joy 
of the minister to bring men into personal loving fellow- 
ship with God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Lifted up 
upon the cross of Calvary, lifted up upon the throne of 
glory, lifted up in the preaching of his disciples, by whom 
he is openly set forth crucified, he is drawing all men unto 
himself. To him be all the praise. 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith. 




The Limitations of Science. By Louis Trenchard More, Ph.D., Pro- 
fessor in the University of Cincinnati. New York: Henry Holt and 
Company, 1915. $1.50 net. 

In the advertisement by the publishers of Professor More’s book we 
read a concise outline of its purpose and method. We are told that “this 
book shows how scientists have carried on two lines of different and 
frequently antagonistic work. They have steadily extended our 
knowledge of natural phenomena and laws, and they have also created 
a most complicated and purely metaphysical world which has no re- 
semblance to the world of our sensations. Many scientists claim that 
this making of hypotheses is a necessity; and others, that it is useful, 
although the conclusions derived from these speculations are false. 
Both of these claims are discussed in the first five chapters. The next 
chapter deals with the effect of this method on men of science. In the 
last chapter the relation of hypothesis to science in general is considered. 
The question is asked, for instance, whether scientific sociology and 
scientific ethics are advisable, or even possible. A notable feature of 
the book is the author’s contention, in accord with Bergson’s philosophy, 
as to the limitations of the human intellect.” 

The question before us therefore is a simple one. Does the writer 
prove his contention that men of science should confine themselves 
simply to the investigation and classification of the phenomena of experi- 
ence and cease to use hypotheses which deal with as yet unproved (and 
in Professor More’s opinion undiscoverable) things? The charge is made 
that the whole atomic hypothesis with its later developments of the 
division of the atom into ions and the identification of these ions with 
electrical charges or strains in the ether is merely a great construction 
of the mind with no provable relation to things that really exist. The 
ether itself is shown to be explained by various investigators as pos- 
sessing many and contradictory properties and our author insists that 
of it also we know nothing. Many instances are given of the alleged 
departure by scientists from solid facts and their growing propensity 
to treat their theories as in reality more true than the elements which 
are immediately presented to our senses. 

Your reviewer not being in a position to criticize adequately this 
argument referred the book to a distinguished man of science and will 
embody certain of his criticisms in this review. First, it should be noted 
that many of what Dr. More regards as unsupported theories are now 



being proved to have very substantial basis. For example, on page 29 
we read : “The transmutation of the elements, a problem which has 

baffled research for centuries is announced as an assured fact, because 
radium and a few other substances spontaneously give off energy.” 
The statement is not true. Radium not only gives off energy but a new 
and distinct element is actually formed in the process. Also recent 
experiments have been able to isolate and count ions. Their existence 
is no longer theory — it is fact. 

Secondly, Dr. More seems to forget that men of science cannot stop 
at a limit arbitrarily given to them by philosophic friends who say 
“thus far and no farther.” On page 66 we read: “The essential point 
is whether physics has anything to do with the nature of matter and 

But why must only the phenomena be studied and the nature be ig- 
nored, unless from the standpoint of a thoroughgoing Kantian that we 
can never know the true nature of anything. This is an unproved and 
an unprovable philosophic assumption. 

Thirdly, there is a peculiarly naive way of treating the whole universe 
manifest in Dr. More’s thought. He seems to think that it must be 
finally explained in inherently simple terms. But all modern investiga- 
tion is showing us that it is more and more complicated in its explana- 
tions. We are dealing with nature as it is, not with a theory of how it 
ought to be. Illustrating this may be quoted from page 44 the fol- 
lowing: “The chemical molecule may be decomposed into atoms 

. . . and these into subatoms . . . and we can think of no reason 
why matter should have been created of this size rather than 
any other.” What conceivable difference does it make whether we can 
or cannot think of the reason. We want the facts. We are not recreat- 
ing the world after our own mental image. 

And finally, though many other criticisms might be made, we note 
the whole underlying purpose of Dr. More when on page 134 he is 
outlining his own better scientific method. He says : “Since mechanical 
explanations are to be avoided, it is necessary to endow the electron 
with all the attributes of gross matter.” Here is the whole argument 
in a nutshell. The modern men of science are trying to explain all 
phenomena and the existence that lies behind them by using the 
known mechanical laws. This, it is argued, they should not do. They 
should admit that the explanations of why things are as they appear, 
are of a different nature, spiritual, and not subject to their investigation. 

It is well that we should be reminded that all science rests on 
hypothesis and that many theories are advanced as facts. There is a 
danger that many will be blinded by a display of reasoning on the nature 
of things so that they forget that even with all its modern knowledge 
science cannot answer the great underlying questions of religion and 
philosophy — Why? Whence? Whither? 

But when a defender of the right of religion boldly advances to 

1 1 6 


attack the dogmatism and idolatry of men of science he should be more 
certain of his ground and not be manifestly swayed in his thinking by a 
philosophy which is just as unprovable as that which he assails. 

Philadelphia. Gordon M. Russell. 

The Philosophy of Faith: An Enquiry. By Bertram Brewster. Lon- 
don, 39 Parternoster Row; New York, Bombay and Calcutta, Long- 
mans, Green, and Co. 1913. All rights reserved. $1.20 net. 

Under the titles of Truth, Virtue, Freedom, Optimism, Beauty and 
Highest Good, Mr. Brewster discusses in pleasing style and from a 
spiritualistic standpoint some of the vital problems of religion and 
ethics. His book is a series of sketches on philosophical themes rather 
than an attempt to develop a philosophical system. He emphasizes the 
voluntary element in knowledge, and holds that for some opinions at 
any rate, such as those with which religion is concerned, “there is a 
practical and momentous alternative for every one.” 

While Mr. Brewster’s voluntarism and his philosophy of faith would 
seem more congenial with indeterminism, it is interesting to notice that 
in his discussion of freedom he defends the deterministic position. The 
old analogy of the composition of forces is resorted to, and thus “the 
encumbrance of an incredible and compromising dogma,” that of in- 
determinism, is removed. Some reservations are made at the end of 
the chapter; in fact, the doctrine that volition is determined by the 
strongest motive seems to be given up when it is said that “the weaker 
motive may often in this w r ay, by being taken at the flood, become the 
stronger one at the critical moment. ... If the wish be present, even 
though relatively feeble, means may be found to make it prevail.” 
David can still slay the giant with his sling, before the latter closes 
upon him. If Mr. Brewster is chargeable with inconsistency in his 
treatment of freedom, he is at least not the only writer on this subject 
against whom the accusation may be made. 

Especially interesting is the chapter on Beauty, in which the author 
contends that no naturalistic explanation of beauty can be adequate. 
Beauty is “an effluence we know not whence unless it comes from the 
soul of the universe.” Beauty is “the promise of God impressed upon 
his works,” and for the man of faith “the universe exists mainly for 
beauty and for love.” 

Lincoln University, Pa. Wm. Hallock Johnson. 

Selections from the Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense. Edited, 
with an Introduction, by G. A. Johnston, M.A., Lecturer in Moral 
Philosophy in the University of Glasgow. The Open Court Series 
of Classics of Science and Philosophy, No. 2. Chicago and London : 
The Open Court Publishing Company. 1915. 8vo; pp. vii, 267. 

The writers selected Mr. Johnston as most representative of the 
Scottish School are Adam Ferguson, James Beattie, Dugald Stewart, 
and, of course, first of all and above all, Thomas Reid. From the 


ii 7 

works of these he gives us, Ferguson's discussion “Of Man’s Progress- 
ive Nature,” in “The Principles of Moral and Politcal Science”; Beat- 
tie’s study of “The Perception of Truth in General,” in his “Essay on 
the Nature and Immutability of Truth”; Dugald Stewart’s investiga- 
tion of “The Object of Philosophy, and the Method of Prosecuting 
Philosophical Inquiries,” in his “Outlines of Moral Philosophy”; his 
remarks on “The Association of Ideas,” in the same; his paragraphs on 
“The Power which the Mind has over the Train of its Thoughts,” in 
“The Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind” ; his considera- 
tion of “The Influence of Association on our Active Principles, and on 
Our Moral Judgments” from the same; and his discussion “Of Certain 
Laws of Belief, Inseparably connected with the Exercise of Conscious- 
ness, Memory, Perception, and Reasoning”, also from the same; and 
Reid’s “Introduction to the Philosophy of Common Sense” in his “In- 
quiry into the Human Mind”; his “Analysis of a Typical Sensation” 
from the same; his chapter on “Knowledge and Reality” from the 
same ; his study “Of the Operations of the Mind” from the same ; and 
his consideration “Of Morals” as found in his “Essays on the Active 
Powers of Man.” 

Mr. Johnston’s introduction to the Scottish Philosophy, though brief, 
is adequate, and specially so in view of the “Bibliography with which 
it closes ; and an excellent index completes the volume. 

We congratulate The Open Court Publishing Company on this work 
of theirs, and particularly on the service which they have rendered to 
philosophy and more definitely to the cause of truth. In more senses 
than one is the Scottish Philosophy the “philosophy of common sense” ; 
and though it may not be in favor with the advanced thinkers of to-day, 
even they could profitably use it as a check on many of their speculations 
and could find in it models of clearness and terseness of style which 
they would do well to imitate. 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr... 


Foundations of Christian Belief. Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. 
By Francis L. Strickland, Professor of Philosophy in the Univer- 
sity of West Virginia, formerly President of Simpson College, 
Iowa. New York, Cincinnati : The Abingdon Press. 1915. 8vo., 
pp. 319. Net $1.50. 

The design and scope of this admirable work are best stated in the 
following words of the author himself : “The purpose is to present a 
view of the great truth of a gradually unfolding revelation of God in 
human life. We shall attempt to discuss some fundamental matters in 
the philosophy of religion. The method will not 'be that of abstract 
speculation. We shall consider fundamental truths in the philosophical 
spirit, but from the standpoint of religious values. An interpretation of 


1 iS 

the religious life demands that we find and set forth some adequate 
ground of religious certainty. To do this is one of the great purposes 
of these studies. If we can do this, we shall see that faith is but a 
phase of knowledge and the same foundations underlie that portion of 
experience called religion as underlie the whole of experience. If these 
pages shall help some to see more dearly that in spite of the changes 
wrought in human thinking by modern science and philosophy, the 
‘foundations of God stand fast.' they will have found a justification.'' 
This they do find. That is to say. our author makes out his case. To 
all who will believe he proves personal idealism, which he identifies 
with Christian theism, to be the rational demand of the facts of life 
and thus the only valid interpretation of religious experience. In a 
word, the great and universal and indisputable fact of religion postulates 
an infinite and personal Spirit. 

Specially admirable in Professor Strickland's standpoint is his con- 
ception of the relation of philosophy to religion. This he puts so well 
that the reviewer feels that it ought to be reproduced and yet could not 
venture to reproduce it otherwise than in the writer's owm words. 
"Speculative — that is abstractly logical — discussions of religion are not 
worth while. Our purpose shall be the more practical one of drafting 
philosophy into service as we seek some adequate interpretation of the 
facts of the religious life. And yet we must not use this professed 
wish to present a treatment from the standpoint of practical values 
as an excuse for slighting those broad philosophical principles which 
ought to guide in any adequate thinking on the great theme of religion. 
The warning that a discussion is going to be practical has not infrequent- 
ly served as a poor excuse for superficiality. There are those, of course, 
who urge that the less religion has to do with philosophy the better 
for religion. It must be admitted that the introduction of metaphysics 
into the discussion of fundamental religious ideas has often led off into 
barren and speculative wastes. But it must be remembered that it is 
not the use of metaphysics but the use of bad metaphysics which has 
produced this dreary result. 

Any attempt at a serious treatment of religious thought cannot 
avoid a dependence upon philosophy. It is fallacious to separate in our 
thinking religious experience from the rest of experience. The same 
rational principles underlie both, the same laws of thought and feeling 
govern both. The same knowledge of the mind's workings is needed 
to interpret both. The idea that there can be a purely Christian 
philosophy based upon truths specially revealed is a healthy protest 
against speculative treatment of religion, and the protest is not out of 
order. But the attempt to establish a distinctively Christian philosophy 
because Christianity, being a revealed religion, contains all the truth 
which it is necessary to know and also because Christianity is sup- 
posed to have its own set of fundamental principles, is one of the 
surest ways of belittling Christianity and subjecting it unjustly to the 
suspicion that it cannot endure the same tests of validity which apply in 



other realms of thought. There is no more reason for a special 
Christian philosophy than for a special Christian sociology and econom- 
ics. The claim that Christianity has its own categories or fundamental 
principles of thought and feeling is false, and based upon a misunder- 
standing of certain Scripture passages. The immanent laws of the reason 
are revealed in the world about us. We understand the universe 
because it is the product of divine thought which is kindred to our 
thinking. God’s revelation must not be regarded as always some special 
or extraordinary way in which he has communicated his truth. These 
extraordinary methods of making himself known are not impossible 
and we may well believe that now and again they have taken place. 
But the great body of the revelation lies, after all, in the perception 
of the Divine thought and purpose in the regular ongoing forces of 
life. ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
my ways, saith the Lord’ does not mean that the Divine thought is 
absolutely different in nature from human thinking. These words ex- 
press a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference between the finite 
and the infinite.” That is, while revelation must justify itself to life 
as well as to logic, it cannot be even thought of as justifying itself 
to life unless it can also be shown to justify itself to logic; and that 
God is infinite means, not that logic does not control his thinking, but 
that it controls it absolutely. 

Tn thus calling attention, however, to this admirable foundation for a 
theistic philosophy of religion, the reviewer would not have it sup- 
posed for a moment that he approves of every stone in it, and still 
less in every respect of the structure erected on it. Indeed, he finds 
himself constrained to indicate at least the following points at which, 
as it seems to him, Professor Strickland’s positions need to be supple- 
mented or corrected : 

1. Our author in his chapter on ‘‘Philosophic World Views” omits 
all discussion or even mention of pluralism. These world-views he con- 
siders to be materialism, agnosticism and pantheism, on the one hand, 
and the Christian view or theism on the other; and he would sum up 
the first three under the common head of pantheism. This omission, of 
course, may be because he does not regard pluralism as philosophical ; 
and it is true that it does not, as he insists that every world-view must, 
justify itself to reason as well as to the facts of life: but neither do 
the systems which he repudiates, and pluralism has been held and is 
still championed by many who stand so high in philosophic circles that it 
would seem to have the right to recognition. We usually feel that 
when Leibnitz or James or Ward speaks we ought to listen, and they 
must be classed as pluralists. 

2. We cannot accept our author’s position as to the freedom which 
personality involves. He does not hold that this is power to choose 
and to act without motive or against the stronger motive, but he does 
affirm, as did Julius Muller, that freedom is the power to become — to 
form one’s own character” — and so to make one’s own motive “out of 



self.” That is, while the will is determined by the character which has 
been formed, it could and did form that character. In the last analysis, 
however, this means that the will is a separate faculty and that as such 
it is outside of the chain of cause and effect. Is this not a perpetuation 
of Kant’s error of a transcendental as distinguished from an empirical 
self? Is it not contradicted by the most positive teaching of the best 
modern psychology, that the self is one and indivisible? The will, then, 
is not a separate faculty. It is just the self expressing itself; the self 
determining itself by itself ; the self choosing what it wants to choose 
and doing what it wants to do; the self thus confirming itself, but 
not reforming itself. That is to say, is not the only question, as to the 
freedom of the self or the person and not as to the freedom of the 
will? And as to this, when understood, can there be any question? As 
T. H. Green has well said (Prolegomena to Ethics, p. 93) “the question 
as to the freedom of moral agents is not the question commonly de- 
bated with much ambiguity of terms, between ‘determinists’ and ‘in- 
determinists,’ not the question whether there is or is not a possibility 
of unmotived willing; but the question whether motives, of that kind 
by which it is the characteristic of moral or human action to be deter- 
mined, are of properly natural origin or can be rightly regarded as 
natural phenomena.” That they may not be so regarded is clear. As a 
matter of fact it is not what is external to us that moves us to choice 
and action. The saloon is no temptation to a man of pure appetites : 
it is an invincible temptation to a man of thoroughly depraved appetites. 
Thus it is not the external saloon but the internal appetite that makes 
the temptation : and so it is that the man, though he be the slave of 
drink, is free ; he determines himself by himself ; he himself chooses to 
drink, and he so chooses because of his own appetite. So long as he 
is a man he cannot do otherwise. It is the necessity of his nature 
thus to determine himself by himself and so to be under the law of 
freedom, just as it is the necessity of the stone’s nature to be deter- 
mined in its course by what is outside of itself and thus to be under 
the law of necessity. Causation operates equally in both cases. It 
operates differently, however, in both, because of the radical differences 
between them. In the one case it is physical and, therefore, must be 
necessary; in the other it is rational and, therefore, must be free. In 
the one case, the agent is so compelled that his initiative and consequent 
responsibility are destroyed. In the other case, he is so convinced and 
persuaded out of and by his own dispositon that his initiative is de- 
veloped and his responsibility is established. 

Nor is the objection valid, that this “weak determinism,” as our 
author calls it, is determinism still. We determine ourselves by our- 
selves, that is true ; but in the last analysis ourselves are what God 
permits or causes them to be. Could any other position, however, 
be taken and theism be maintained? If we could remove human 
activity in any way from God’s control, we should be driven into 
pluralism ; and pluralism Professor Strickland would seem to regard 
as too unphilosophical to be worthy even of mention. 


12 I 

3. In like manner, we must take exception to our author’s conception 
of creation. He objects to the position that “the world was created 
at some point or period in past time.” (P. 182.) He would substitute 
for it the doctrine that “creation is a constant and ever ongoing mani- 
festation of the power of God and not a manifestation of that power 
once completed in past time.” “Science teaches us,” he says “that the 
great day of creation is still on. The student of the earth-sciences 
knows that the mighty changes through which the earth has passed 
are not all complete. Geologic change is still taking place and will 
probably continue to go on for ages to come. . . . The Divine Creator 
is ever at work in a world that is never done being born.” Is not this, 
however, to confuse creation with preservation and government. The 
question is not whether God is still himself at work in his world. 
He is, and as much and as really as ever. He is continually “preserv- 
ing and governing all his creatures and all their actions.” The question 
is whether these works of providence are the same with the work of 
creation. To us, at least, it would seem that they are not. Creation 
involves origination; providence, the upholding and developing or, if 
you please, evolving, of what has been originated. Is there not here a 
radical distinction of which our author loses sight? 

Moreover, grant what he claims, that origination is still going on ; 
that new combinations of things, and thus new things, are continually 
being brought into being. This will not establish our author’s con- 
tention. There is another distinction that he must reckon with, that 
between creatio prima and creatio secunda. That is, the distinction 
between the origination of new forms out of and in cooperation with 
existing material, and the origination in the first instance and by the 
immediate power of God alone of the first material. Now this must 
have been, from the nature of the case, a unique and an instantaneous 
and an exclusively supernatural act, an act essentially different from 
works of providence and even from creatio secunda. There is no escap- 
ing this conclusion. The only alternative is that of the eternity of 
matter, and this alternative must land us either in materialism, which 
our author ably refutes, or in pluralism, which he would seem utterly to 

4. Again, he is inconsistent in his doctrine of the Bible and of its 
inspiration. Of both he takes a very high view. Inspiration he charac- 
terizes “as the personal influence of God through which a man receives 
deeper insight and great enthusiam for his work.” Instead of classing 
the Bible with the sacred books of the other religions, he says : “The 
light of truth as seen in the religions of the Far East is the twilight 
of early dawn when we compare those religions with the full noon- 
tide of Christianity. Nothing could illustrate this better than a com- 
parison of the Christian Scriptures with the sacred writings of the 
Oriental religions.” And yet he denies the inerrancy and even the moral 
infallibility of the Bible (p. 244). This he might do, if, like the Con- 
fucian Classics, our Scriptures made no claim to be, even as to their 



words, the Word of God. This, however, he cannot do consistently in 
view of the fact that the Scriptures do claim to have been written not 
in “the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
Ghost teacheth” (I Cor. II:io). That is, our author is refuted by his 
own principle. His contention is that the nature of inspiration should 
be determined by the facts of the Bible, and not by any dogmatic theory; 
but of all the facts of the Bible that bear on its nature which one can 
be so pertinent as its own emphatic and constant claim to be “The 
Word” of him who cannot err because he is himself “the Truth”? In the 
light of this claim the Bible must be either an inerrant and infallible 
book or the greatest imposture of all time. If it claimed less for 
itself, it would be otherwise; but claiming what it does, this is the 
only logical conclusion. 

Again, Professor Strickland confounds incompleteness with imper- 
fection (p. 254). The Old Testament is incomplete, but it is not 
imperfect. The personal teaching of Christ is incomplete, but it is not 
imperfect. The former needs to be supplemented by the New Testa- 
ment ; the latter requires to be supplemented by the apostolic writings : 
but each, though partial, is true and authoritative so far as it goes. 
That no other position is justifiable should be self-evident. Children, 
because of their immaturity and imperfection, call for very rudimentary 
instruction; but far more than in the case even of the grown-up is it 
felt that this instruction should be free from error. Because they are 
children, there is much that we do not teach them, but what we do 
teach them we recognize should be the truth only. Nor can our author 
on his theory save himself from inconsistency by transferring infalli- 
bility from the Bible to Christ. He infallibly affirms that “the Scrip- 
ture cannot be broken” (John x:35). What, then, becomes of his 

Nor is there a way of escape through the distinction between errors 
of fact and errors of principle, between lapses of memory and moral 
perversion. The distinction is a real and an important one, but it is not 
pertinent. There is not room for either kind of error in him who is 
“the Truth.” In a wmrd, our author’s position on the Bible is des- 
tructive of the true deity of our Lord. He does not mean that it 
should be, but such logically it must be. In view of Christ’s claim for 
the Bible, the comparatively few and unproved errors in it may reason- 
ably be held in abeyance, but they cannot be admitted and his deity be 

5. Our author’s conception of the Supernatural is, as might have 
been expected, unsatisfactory. The essence of the Supernatural is not 
the unfamiliar or even the inexplicable. To understand a miracle is 
not to find out that it is not a miracle. Nor does the fact that the 
reason for a miracle lies in its moral purpose dispense with the inquiry 
as to its efficient cause. Its moral purpose is to call attention to and to 
attest a personal because immediate revelation from God, and it can and 
does fulfill this purpose because it is the outputting of God’s own hand. 



In it he beckons to men to listen to his own voice. Thus the miracle 
does not contradict nature; for it is the effect of him who, because he 
created and upholds and governs nature, may not be conceived as 
violating it: but the miracle is above nature; for, thoagh presupposing 
nature and entering into it, it does not proceed from it, it is the product 
of the strictly because solely, personal, activity of God himself. Hence, 
in one sense it is in the highest degree natural. It is precisely the 
kind of action to be expected in the case of a truly personal God. 
Even we, in spite of our finite personality, could never be satisfied to 
talk with our friends only by proxy or never to work in and on our 
own creation with our own hands. In a word, Professor Strickland’s 
doctrine of the supernatural does not measure up to what might have 
been anticipated from his distinctly theistic philosophy of religion. 

There needs to be added only that our author’s sentences are short 
and clear; and that “while dealing with abstruse themes, his method 
is concrete rather than abstract, and critical only for the purpose of 
construction.” It is just because “The Foundation of Christian Belief” 
is for either reason likely to be widely read that our review of it has 
been prolonged, as may seem to some, unduly. 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr. 

Divine Inspiration. By George Preston Mains, Author of “Christi- 
anity and the New Age,” “Modern Thought and Traditional Faith,” 
etc. Hodder & Stoughton. New York: George H. Doran Com- 

pany. 1915. 8vo, pp. 171. 

The aim of the author of this brief but interesting and suggestive 
book is twofold, positive and negative. Positively, he would establish 
the reality, universality and continuity of a divine revelation, and that 
this revelation is most fully embodied and most clearly expressed in the 
Bible, “which stands, and will forever hold its place, as the supreme 
literary record of the highest experiences of elect souls in their direct 
realization of God.” Negatively, his purpose is to deny that the Bible 
is the Word of God in the orthodox sense; namely, that it is the 
specially, because supernaturally, inspired and so inerrant and infallible 
record of God’s supernatural revelation to sinners. In a word, he 
would exalt the Bible to a permanent and unique place among human 
books, but he would also show that it is at last only a human book. 

The difficulty of this position emerges the moment that we consider 
the Bible’s own claim for itself. Whether truly or not, it affirms itself 
to be the Word of God in such a sense that its very words should be 
regarded as God’s words. Paul, for example, declares that the sacred 
writers “speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but 
which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor. ii : 13) . Nor in interpreting 
such passages in this way do we wrest them from their natural sense. 
On the contrary, writers as thoroughly in sympathy with our author as 
Archdeacon Farrar (Vid. Life of St. Paul, Vol. I, p. 49) hold that 
“the Apostles shared, doubtless, in the views of the later Jewish schools 



— Tanaim and Amoraim — on the nature of inspiration. These views 
. . . made the words of Scripture coextensive and identical with the 
words of God.” That is, while the Archdeacon does not himself believe 
this, he admits that it is what the Apostles in the passage referred to 
and in others like it would teach. If this be so, however, then, the' 
Bible is on its face a lie or a mistake. It comes to us claiming to be 
what it is not. It asserts itself to be God’s Word even as to its words. 
It is, Dr. Mains would have us believe, only “the supreme literary 
record of the highest experiences of elect souls in their direct realiza- 
tion of God.” But how could any book that on its very face was 
either a lie or a mistake be “the supreme literary record of the highest 
experiences of elect souls in their direct realization of God? To hold 
that the Bible is the latter, we must go further and admit its own claim 
to a special supernatural inspiration securing infallibly its record of its 
revelation whether rational or supernatural. The fact is that Dr. Mains’ 
own view of “Divine Inspiration “is too high not to be higher. God, 
just because he is God, cannot reveal himself to elect or other souls even 
through the medium of a lie or a mistake. 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr. 

Bahaism and Its Claims. By Samuel Graham Wilson, D.D., Thirty- 
two Years Resident in Persia, Author of “Persian Life and Cus- 
toms,” etc. New York, Chicago, Toronto, London and Edinburgh: 
Fleming H. Revel Company. 1915. 8vo, pp. 298. 

“Bahaism is a revolt from the fold of Islam which in recent years has 
been bidding vigorously for the support of Occidental minds. Many 
of its principles are culled from the Christian religion, which it insidi- 
ously seeks to supplant. What this Oriental cult is, what it stands for, 
and what it aims at, is told in this volume.” The author, by long resi- 
dence in Persia, by laborious and intelligent investigation, and by 
unusual precision both in thought and statement, is admirably qualified 
for his task. 

After a brief “historical sketch,” he sets forth “the General” and 
“the Specific Claims of Bahaism he contrasts Bahaism with Christi- 
anity ; he presents its attitude toward the “State,” its position with 
regard to “Women,” its Record as to “Morals” and as to “Religious 
Assassination,” “the Quarrel over the Succession,” and “Bahaism in 
America.” An excellent “Bibliography” and “Index” conclude the 

So careful is our author in his statements, so accurate in his citations, 
so convincing in his logic, so comprehensive and so minute in his sur- 
vey, that he has both made a notable addition to the history of religions 
and has contributed a strong and a needed defence of Christianity. 
Bahaism, though in this country apparently a decadent, is still a mili- 
tant religion ; and, accordingly, we welcome most heartily this crushing 
analysis and exposure of its pretensions. 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr. 



Christian Science and Christianity Compared. By Rev. Thos. J. M. 
Crossan, B.A., B.D. New York: Chas. C. Cook, 150 Nassau St. 
Pamph, pp. 58. 10 cents. 

The writer clearly proves “twenty great fundamental differences” 
between Christianity as set forth in the Bible and Christian Science as 
unfolded in its Bible or Mrs. Eddy’s “Science and Health.” — Is the Bible 
the Word of God I By W. H. Sutton. New York: Chas. C. Cook, 150 
Nasau St. Small pamph., pp. 31. The fruits of the Bible are such 
as could not come from a lie or a mistake; and its claims for itself 
are such that it would be a lie or a mistake on its very face, were it 
not the infallible word of God himself. This is the gist of the author’s 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr. 

Die Wirklichkeit Gottes. Die christliche Religion unserer Zeit I. Von 
Dr. W. Herrmann, Professor der Theologie in Marburg. Tubingen. 
Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 1914. Pp. 48. 

The author seeks to show how we become certain of the reality of 
God. He does this from the general standpoint and presuppositions 
which are well known from his former writings. We cannot “prove” 
the "reality” of God; we cannot give any theoretic, scientific, or ration- 
ally valid arguments to ground our belief in God. Neither can we 
attain belief in God by seeing in our conscience the voice of God, nor 
by any valid inference from our moral nature, for Herrmann says that 
we must first be certain of God’s existence before we can regard our 
conscience as His voice. 

In short, Herrmann says that we experience the reality of God when 
we come into personal contact with righteousness and goodness in 
our fellow men. In this experience we feel ourselves freed from the 
hindrances to our true religious life which we find in the world 
around us. These our fellow men may prove very imperfect, but 
nevertheless the power of their goodness, abstracted as it were from 
themselves, we recognize as the Almighty God who rules the world. 

Having thus found God, we can see Him in Christ and recognize 
Jesus as our Saviour, no matter to what extent historical criticism may 
have rendered dim His form and outline, and made the facts of His 
life uncertain. 

We shall not stop to point out the weakness of the fundamental 
Ritschlian presuppositions which determine the author’s whole argu- 
ment. This has been done too frequently to require repetition here. 
We shall rather indicate briefly some points of criticism pertaining 
to this particular essay. 

First, if, as Herrmann says, we cannot regard conscience as the 
voice of God, nor make any inference from it to God’s existence or 
nature, how can we find God in the ethical qualities of our fellow men? 
Herrman says that only after we are certain of God’s reality, can 
we regard conscience as His voice. But how, then, can ethical qualities, 



such as goodness and truth in others, give us an immediate experience 
of God? These qualities depend upon the approval of our conscience 
for the value which we put on them and consequently for the impression 
which they make upon us. Any ethical theory, such for example as 
that of naturalistic evolution, which would reduce the ethical inperative 
of conscience to lower terms and destroy its religious significance, 
would also alter the moral value of the content of this imperative. On 
the other hand if it could be maintained that we experience God im- 
mediately in the goodness and truth of our fellows, why might we 
not infer that the conscience which approves these qualities was God’s 
voice, and if so we would have some rationally valid ground of belief 
in God. 

Secondly, it is interesting to observe how Herrmann’s position has 
become more and more independent of Christ as the revealer of God. 
In his former writings, especially in his Communion with God, he "held 
that we experience the only revelation of God in the inner life of 
Jesus mediated to us through historical tradition. 

Now he asserts that we must first be certain of the reality of God in 
our immediate experience of goodness in our fellow men before we 
can find God in Christ. But if this is so, then we have no absolute 
need of Christ as the revealer of God. Nor may it be replied that the 
content of our knowledge of God is enriched by Christ’s revelation, 
because Herrmann explicitly states that we can have no knowledge of 
what God really is, but only of His effects upon us. If this is so, then 
any supposed enrichment of our knowledge of God through Christ is 
equally subjective with the knowledge which we are supposed to derive 
from our fellow men. 

Moreover it is a mistake to suppose that in this way we become inde- 
pendent of the results of the historical criticism of the Gospels, for 
even if it be granted that we have a certainty of God’s reality through 
our present experience, we cannot by any means on this account be 
certain of any knowledge of God through Christ if historical criticism 
should render uncertain the facts of His life and teaching and even His 

The fact is that in denying any supernatural revelation, Herrmann 
must find a revelation of God in some section of the phenomena of 
Providence. But if the whole of Nature and history can give us no real 
knowledge of God nor rational ground for belief in God, no small 
section of Providence can be supposed to do so. 

Thirdly, we cannot thus become independent of “natural theology’’ or 
of the philosophy of religion. Herrmann says that if the philosophy 
of religion were to disappear from the earth, we would be better off 
as respects our knowledge of God. But as a matter of fact the agnostic 
epistemological presuppositions with which Herrmann operates will 
render impossible any certitude of God’s reality, unless we were to 
postulate some mystical intuition which Herrmann would be the first to 

Princeton. C. W. Hodge. 



The Natural Order of Spirit. A Psychic Study and Experience. By 

Lucien C. Graves. Boston : Sherman French & Company. 1915. 

Pp. xv, 365. $1.50. 

The Society for Psychical Research exists for the investigation of 
certain phenomena which cannot be profitably treated in ordinary 
psychology. The work of the Society has proved that the greater por- 
tion of Spiritualistic claims is fraud pure and simple. There remains 
over, however, a residue of seeming fact which hitherto has resisted 
ordinary explanation. These unexplained effects have been used by such 
men as Professor James, Professor Hyslop, Sir Oliver Lodge, F. W. H. 
Myers, Professor Barrett, Dr. Wallace, Sir William Crooks, Flammar- 
ion, Lombroso, Maxwell, Richet, Carrington, and others, either for 
materializing the spiritual or spiritualizing the material, according to 
the inclination of each. 

On March 30, 1911, the author’s son was killed in a railway accident. 
Thereafter, at intervals extending over four years, he made himself 
known to his sorrowing parents “by many confirmatory and deeply 
personal tokens.” The “psychic” through whom he communicated 
was Mrs. Chenoweth, for whom a letter of recommendation as a “per- 
fectly honest and respectable person” signed by Professor Hyslop is 
printed in the front of the book. It is not considered necessary to 
print a letter of recommendation guaranteeing the accuracy of Profes- 
sor Hyslop’s opinion. 

The book divides into two parts. The second part contains detailed 
accounts of the various sittings and what was given at them concerning 
the spirit world. The first part is a species of captatio benevolentiae 
addressed to the general reader urging him to believe in spirit phenom- 
ena. The second part is the most interesting for it really amounts to 
a “revelation” of the spirit world. Most striking is an investigation, by 
means of a carefully prepared questionnaire, of spirit conditions, at a 
sitting at which the spirit of Mr. Myers was present. The first part 
connects spiritualistic facts with the latest theories of modern physics. 
From it we see that whereas in ancient times spirits were located in the 
dark places, the caves, and the ravines, the night and the storm ; in 
modern times they dwell in the ether where are the electrons, the 
effluxes, the vortices, the disengaged particles, and many other interest- 
ing creatures. 

In judging such a book no better advice can be given than that con- 
tained in 1 John 4:1-3 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the 
spirits, whether they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone 
out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God: every spirit 
which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and 
every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God,” Tried by this 
standard the spirits that communicated through Mrs. Chenoweth are 
not of God. Spirit teaching is wholly in accord with the best results 
of the literary criticism of the Bible (p. 21 1) ; they usually don’t see 
Christ (p. 355) ; one who had “gave me to understand in a quiet and 



sweet manner that she did not regard Christ in the theological sense 
as God or as born of a virgin” (p. 355). 

If the door here opened reveals the truth we are afraid that most of 
us will echo the words of Bill the burglar in Lord Dunsany’s The 
Glittering Gate “O Jim, Jim, there h’ain’t no ’eaven.” 

Lincoln University, Pa. George Johnson. 


The Prophets of Israel front the Eighth to the Fifth Century: their 
Faith and their Message. By Moses Buttenwteser, Ph.D., Pro- 
fessor of Biblical Exegesis, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. New 
York: The Macmillan Company. 1914. Pp. xxii. 350. $2.00. 

According to the theory propounded by Professor Buttenwieser in this 
volume there is an “unbridgeable gap” between the older prophecy and 
that of the great literary prophets, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and others 
(p. 161). The older prophecy was characteristically “mantic possession 
or ecstasy” (p. 160), “a state which could be artificially produced at 
will” (p. 138). With this “the inspiration of the great literary prophets 
has nothing in common” (p. 138). “The literary prophets themselves 
took pains to disclaim any connection between their revelation and the 
divination of the official prophets of their day, or the divination of the 
recognized prophetic guilds — which was the same divination as was 
practiced bj r the older prophets” (p. 143). “The most important passage 
bearing on this point is Jer. xxiii. 9-40, where prophetic inspiration is 
clearly defined, and the radical difference between it and divination 
exhaustively set forth” (p. 144). “Having established the basic fact that 
God is immanent, is a living reality in man, Jeremiah goes on to show 
how . . . true revelation is the manifestation of the indwelling God in 
the human heart” (p. 147 f). “Not through such delusive and artifi- 
cial media as dreams and frenzy, not through a perverted imagination, 
the prophet means to say, does God reveal himself, but immediately and 
directly to the inner perception of man and “not to the prophet alone 
but to every individual — reveals himself immediately and unmistakably 
in the moral consciousness of each. Thus reduced to its essence, di- 
vested of all the miraculous features and supernatural accompaniments 
which the primitive mind has associated with it, prophetic inspiration 
seems a very simple matter indeed” (p. 150). “Amos, Hosea, Micah, 
Isaiah, Deutero-Jsaiah, every one of them, . . . when he spoke of 
revelation, meant the divine force or voice which he felt within his 
heart. None of them claimed anything else than the impulsion of this 
force, the authority of this voice. It was so simple, so elemental, so 
self-evident to them, that any particular explanation or demonstration 
would have seemed superfluous.” “Man’s moral consciousness . . . was 
no mystery” to them, “it was an a priori fact, the manifestation of God. 



It was the source from which they derived the moral vision and the moral 
energy, which constituted their prophetic gift” (p. 151 ) . “Literary 
prophecy is . . . the direct fruit of the autonomous human spirit, 
which . . . has come to a knowledge of itself and to a realization of 
the purpose and meaning of life — in other words, literary prophecy 
must be accounted the spontaneous creation of genius, the immediate 
product of the intuitive human mind” (p. 155). “Psychologically con- 
sidered, prophetic inspiration is not materially different from the 
furor poeticus of the master-poet or artist’” (p. 156). 

Dr. Buttenwieser is, of course, right in holding that there is a radical 
difference between prophetic inspiration and divination (p. 144). But 
he is wrong in asserting that prophetic inspiration was not character- 
istic of prophecy in Israel in the early period, wrong in implying that 
the esteemed prophets of Jehovah customarily uttered oracles when in 
an ecstatic state or in mantic fury or after “recourse to divination” 
(p. 143). In fact the instances which can be cited as having features 
similar to ecstasy are extremely few, being limited to the band of 
prophets who came down from the high place at Gibeah, led by 
musicians and prophesying as they walked, to Samuel and the prophets 
gathered about him at Naioth in Ramah, and to Elisha who on one 
occasion had a minstrel called and calmed himself by music while he 
waited to hear what God would say (cp. p. 143 note). And there is no 
evidence that either at Ramah or Gibeah the prophesying was revela- 
tion, and made by mantic possession or in ecstasy. For prophesying 
was not exclusively prediction, nor was it always a sermon ; but it might 
consist in mutual exhortation or in the worship of God in exaltation 
of spirit by the voice of thanksgiving and praise or by music (1 Chron. 
xxv, 3). On such occasions the emotional and religious effect on others 
might be powerful (1 Sam. xix. 20 ff). Dr. Buttenwieser justly makes 
no mention of inquiry by means of Urim and Thummim, whether he 
classes this procedure with divination or not; for this method of ap- 
proaching God to seek light and truth was not practised by the prophets 
at any period of the history, and is never confused with prophesying. 
The use of it was restricted to the chief priest, and seems to have been 
resorted to in questions of national moment only. Dr. Buttenwieser 
admits that “literary prophecy had its antecedents and forerunners, 
among whom might be named the Rechabites, Elijah, Micajah b. Jinlah, 
and Nathan” (p. 160). Many more might be instanced. There is no 
semblance of mantic possession or ecstasy or divination in the case of 
the man of God who came unto Eli (1 Sam. ii. 27 f. 30 f), or Samuel 
when he gave Saul evidence of God’s call of him to the kingdom 
(x. 1-8), or when he rebuked Saul and declared God’s rejection of him 
and his descendants (xiii. 13 f, xv. 22 f), or Ahijah the Shilonite 
(1 Kin. xi. 29 ff, xiv. 4 ff ) ; but a dignity and demeanor indistinguishable 
from that of the great literary prophets. 

On the other side also of the “unbridgable gap” Dr. Buttenwieser errs ; 
for in his zeal to make the gulf impassable between the older prophecy 


and that of the great literary prophets he denies the reality of the 
visions of Isaiah and Jeremiah (Is. vi., Jer. i). Of course, as he truly 
says, they are not “in any way akin to the ecstatic visions and dreams 
of diviners” (p. 139), a state which was artificially produced at will. 
What, then, actually occurred to Isaiah and Jeremiah? There came a 
moment to these men, he says, “when their individual mind . . . stood 
face to face with the infinite, universal mind and realized itself the 
chosen instrument of God’s purpose. This moment marks a new epoch 
in their existence; never again can their life be just as it has been. 
From this moment they are pledged to God’s purpose — they have found 
their mission.” Such deep spiritual experiences “cannot be directly 
expressed. The prophets resort of necessity to an indirect method of 
description” (p. 130). “The throne, Seraphim, smoke (altar, etc. of Is. 
vi . . . in reality . . . are but the imagery which the prophet employs to 
describe those spiritual experiences which elude direct expression” 
(p. 161), “poetic imagery ... by means of which the prophet effectively 
describes his spiritual experience” (p. 163). Surely if, as the author 
avers, Isaiah and Jeremiah were constantly and publicly repudiating 
all visions as deceitful and false, it is passing strange that they should 
adopt this very form and describe their spiritual experience as though 
it were a vision when it was not. 

Dreams and visions are no novelty in the kingdom of God. They 
have nothing to do with divination and mantic possession; but belong 
to the sphere of normal psychology, and are always produced in ac- 
cordance with the laws of mind. Psychologically explicable, they come 
in the providence of God. The Israelites distinguished between vain 
dreams (Job. xx. 8; Ps. lxxiii. 20; Is. xxix. 8) and significant ones. 
According to the law dreams and visions were not accepted as signifi- 
cant until their teaching and their credentials had been subjected to 
tests (Jer. xxiii. 16 f. 21 : cp. Is. viii. 20; Deut. xiii. 1 ff. xviii. 20 ff). Sen- 
sible men to-day distinguish between vain and significant dreams. They 
do not dig up a garden or destroy an orchard in the hope of finding a 
pot of gold, because they have dreamed of the coveted treasure being 
hidden there: but they know when God is speaking to them. The 
religious effect upon their life attests the governing hand of God. By 
means of dreams and visions, of which the natural cause can fre- 
quently be traced in the physical and mental condition of the recipient, 
in ancient and modern times God has advanced his kingdom. By them 
in an age of revelation, and to holy men who were surrendered to his 
service, God has unfolded the future ; and time and again, through a 
dream or a vision of which the psychology is not obscure nor less the 
providence of God, God has affected the lives of men, awakened them 
to their spiritual condition, turned them from sin to righteousness, given 
them a clearer view of truth, called them to fields of labor, encouraged 
them to perserverance. One has only to read the biographies of the 
men of the Bible and the annals of Christian experience in order to 
gather numerous authentic cases. Under such circumstances one wanders 



far from the plain path who seeks to interpret the visions of Isaiah 
and Jeremiah as merely a garb of imagery, a literary device adopted by 
these prophets in which to describe a solemn moment in their lives 
when first they realized God’s purpose concerning them. 

Dr. Buttenwieser maintains that the prophets believe the doom of 
Israel and Judah to be certain. Repentance could not avert it. This 
interpretation of the attitude of the prophets must be understood in the' 
light of what he says of Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah and their conception 
of doom. “However inevitable Hosea considers the destruction of the 
nation, he cannot but see in it a means to an end. The casting off 
of Israel he looks upon as a purifying punishment by which God’s love 
is to work the final salvation of the people, and lead them to a fuller 
union with himself” (p. 242). “Through the fall of the nation Hosea 
expects that the people will at last be brought to realize and to abjure 
these errors of their past life” (p. 246). “Not only does Isaiah make 
himself clear regarding the inevitableness of the judgment, he is equally 
emphatic on the point that the destruction is to be not a partial but a 
complete one” (p. 257) ; and he entertained a hope for the future “to 
which he gave expression ... in the name he bestowed on his son, 
She’ar Yashub, ‘A Remnant shall Return’. ... It signifies . . . that the 
remnant, i.e., the survivors of the judgment, shall become converted” 
(p. 259). And as for Micah, “it is certain that for him the future, 
ideal Israel would have to be built up on the ruins of the present, that 
it would have to be looked for only after the complete destruction of 
the nation and country” (p. 297). On this understanding of the 
preaching of the prophets, the passages of comfort which appear in 
courses are, of course, justified. On this interpretation the criticism in 
vogue of late which would reject prophecies of glory found at the end 
of predictions of woe at once falls to the ground. The integrity of the 
text is placed beyond such cavils. The succession of topics is vindicated. 

As Professor Buttonwieser truly remarks, the spiritual religion 
preached by the prophets is in marked contrast to the vain dependence 
placed by the multitude of the nation “on the punctilious observance of 
the ritual and on regularity and zeal in offering sacrifices” (p. 308). In 
a real sense it is true that “the prophets acknowledged no other mode 
of worship than the worship of God in the spirit, that is to say, by 
faith and by righteous conduct” (p. 308). But it is dangerously near 
an overstatement to say that Jeremiah bids the people “dispense with 
their sacrifices” (p. 310). The prophets recognized the propriety of 
sacrifices and formal worship (Ex. xx. 24; xxii. 29 f ; xxiii. 14-19; Is. 
vi. 6f ; xix. 19-22; lvi. 6-8; Jer. xvii. 26; xxxiii. 18; Gen. viii. 20-22) ; 
but only in connection with righteousness of life. The primary requis- 
ite is “to do justly and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy 
God.” As has lately been rediscovered in certain quarters (Hommel in 
Ancient Hebrews Tradition, p. 15; Expository Times, July, 1900. p. 439), 
such statements as “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” are not intended 
as a denial of God’s pleasure in the worship offered by his people 



through the symbolism of sacrifice, but such statements are rhetorical, 
and contain the “negative of contrast put for the comparative” (Poole, 
Annotations, on Jer. vii. 22; Storr, Obsercationes ad analogiam et syn- 
taxin hebraicam pertinentes), employed in order to subordinate the 
matter of less consequence and emphasize the thing that is supreme. 
In connection with his discussion of the spirituality of religion as 
preached by the prophets, Professor Buttenwieser makes a brief com- 
ment on the contrast between the penitential psalms which have thus 
far come to light in Babylonia and those which are found in the psalter 
of Israel. Probably his remark is confined too exclusively to the 
ritual, and a more fundamental difference between these penitential 
psalms and those in the Hebrew psalter is that which exists between 
fear and contrition; but be that as it may, Professor Buttenwieser 
notices a profound distinction. He says : “Among the most interesting 
monuments we have of ancient Babylon are the so-called Penitential 
Psalms, which, of late years, have often been compared with our 
Penitential Psalms of the Bible. There is, however, a vital difference 
between the two. In the Babylonian Psalms the penitent is solely 
concerned lest he have overlooked some ritual observance, and have 
incurred thereby the displeasure of the god or goddess, whereas in the 
Biblical Psalms it is by the consciousness of human imperfection, of 
moral instability that the psalmst is oppressed” (p. 315). 

The three topics which have been traversed in the foregoing para- 
graphs are the chief features of this serious study. Throughout his 
treatise the author freely employs his own novel translations of the 
Hebrew statements, his own reconstructions of the text, his own in- 
terpretation of the Scriptures. 

Princeton. John D. Davis. 

Classbook of Old Testament History. By George Hodges, Dean of the 
Episcopal Theological School Cambridge, Massachusetts. New 
York: The Macmillan Company. 1913. Pp. xi, 222. 

Dean Hodges we all know as an earnest Christian, a genial com- 
panion, and an admired writer on religious subjects. In this book he 
adventures in a different field, and is not at his best. The book will 
satisfy persons who are contented with a superficial acquaintance with 
the course of history in Israel, but it does not go far enough to meet 
the needs of the serious inquiring mind. The childish language and 
tone have doubtless been purposely assumed, since “this book is in- 
tended for the general reader, and for use in classes in schools and 
churches” (p. v). The author adheres to the general conclusions of 
the school of Wellhausen regarding the sources and date of the 
Biblical writings, but finds a larger amount of genuine history in the 
pages of the Old Testament than members of that school usually do. 
In its attitude toward the record in the Old Testament, the book in 
many places reminds us much of Mr. Woosung Wade’s Old Testament 
History, who assumes a pervading poetic element in the description 
of events, and by this means many occurrences which are sublime in 



the Hebrew recital are reduced to the commonplace. While, as every- 
body knows, there is poetic narration in the Scriptures, as in other 
literature, its extent is easily overestimated, and there is grave danger 
that it be assumed at will in the interest of a theory. In dealing with 
the early traditions Dean Hodges interprets them in a manner which 
does scant justice to the traditions themselves, to their origin and na- 
ture, and to the purpose and intent of the Hebrew writers. 

Princeton. John D. Davis. 

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. In the new volumes 
of this well and favorably known series of commentaries the text of 
the Revised Version of the Bible is used as the basis for exposition. 
The Book of Genesis. With Introduction and Notes by Herbert E. 
Ryle, D.D., Dean of Westminster, sometime Bishop of Exeter, and of 
Winchester. In archaeology this book is behind the times, and in 
exegesis it would have been greatly improved by a diligent use of the 
commentaries of Franz Delitzsch and August Dillmann. The Book of 
Leviticus. With Introduction and Notes by A. T. Chapman, M.A., 
Late Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and A. W. Streane, 
D.D., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. On taking up 
this little volume we feel at once that we are in a healthier atmosphere. 
The book is the product of scholarly work. Of course high appre- 
ciation for the good scholarship does not forbid occasional exception 
to be taken to conclusions reached by the authors (e.g. p. xiii) The 
Book of Judges and The Book of Ruth. With introduction and notes 
by G. A. Cooke, D.D., Hon. D.D., Edin.; Oriel Professor of the Inter- 
pretation of Holy Scripture, Oxford, and Canon of Rochester; Hon. 
Canon of St. Mary’s Cathedral, Edinburgh. “The history and re- 
ligion of the period” (pp. xxviii-xlii) are described solely from the 
standpoint of the Wellhausen School. The Scripture narrative (pp. 
1-197 and 1-19) is viewed from the same standpoint. As results, 
the exposition is constrained and preference is constantly given to 
interpretations which involve the narrative in contradictions. In these 
respects the commentary falls below the first edition, which was pre- 
pared by Professor J. J. Lias ; but in matters pertaining to the geogra- 
phy and history, the religion and life, of contemporary nations it is 
far superior to the earlier volume, and marks the advance made in 
the knowledge of antiquity during the past twenty-five years by the 
surveyor and the excavator and the inquisitive archaeologist. 

The Revised Version Edited for the Use of Schools. Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 
Edited by the Rev. W. A. L. Elmslee, M.A. and the Rev. John Skin- 
ner, D.D., Cambridge: at the University Press. 1914. 8vo; pp. xxxiv, 
137. Price is. 6d. The value of a commentary on this portion of the 
Scriptures depends mainly on its interpretation of the passages which 
treat of the servant of Jehovah. In this commentary the authors adopt 
an admirable general theory, one that has commended itself to lead- 
ing modern expositors, namely that “the Servant is always ‘Israel’, and 
that the complex features of his personality may be accounted for by 



fluctuations in the aspect under which the prophet happens to be think- 
ing of his people” (p. xxxi). The particular form of the theory, how- 
ever, which the authors of this little commentary advocate is beset by 
difficulties. These difficulties are avoided by the easy expedient of 
charging them to a defective Hebrew text, and by scanty and incon- 
clusive exegesis of the crucial expressions in chapters 49 and 53, and 
by playing with the word vicarious, not using it in its historic sense. 

The Anglican Proper Psalms. Critical and Exegetical Notes on Ob- 
scure and Corrupt Passages in the Hebrew Text, in the Light of Mod- 
ern Knowledge. By C. H. Sellwood Godwin, M.A., St. John’s College, 
Cambridge, First Vicar of St. Aidan’s, Middlesbrough. With a Preface 
by the Rev. Professor A. H. Sayce, M.A., D.D., D.Litt., Professor of 
Assyriology in the University of Oxford, Member of O. T. Revision 
Co. Cambridge : Deighton, Bell & Co., Limited. London : G. Bell & 
Sons, Limited. 1915. Pp. xviii, 88. Price 4s. 6d. The canons of 
textual criticism which the author of this little book adopts are sound, 
and his spirit is excellent. In the very first application of these rules, 
however, he is unfortunate. In appealing on page 2 to the interchange 
of consonants he errs, for koph is not interchangeable with tsade. 
Actual proof, moreover, is lacking as yet that the scribes of an early 
day had difficulty in distinguishing gitnel from nun (pp. 40, 51, 62, 75), 
lamed from rcsh (pp. 40, 54), tau from mem (p. 13). The author is 
quite right, however, in holding that daleth and resh (pp. 42, 61, 80), 
beth, kaph, and pe (pp. 6, 45, 65) were often confused by the scribes. 
The evidence of this fact is clear and abundant. There are some 
curiosities in the book ; for example, from allusions in Ps. xxxii. verse 
6 emended and verse 9, he concludes that the author of this penitential 
psalm was “a God-fearing farmer living in Babylon or Assyria . . . 
who suffered much from the overflow' of the Tigris” (p. 18). Other 
curiosities are comments on Ps. xlviii. 15 and Ps. li. 16. 

Princeton. John D. Davis. 

The Culture of Ancient Israel. By Carl Heinrich Cornill, Professor 
of Old Testament History in the University of Halle. Chicago, 
London : The Open Court Publishing Co. 1914- Pp- 1 6 / • 

This book is made up of five papers. The first two, on the Rise of 
the People of Israel and Moses, the Founder of Monotheistic Religion, 
contain nothing new. The essays on The Education of Children in 
Ancient Israel, Music in the Old Testament, and The Psalms in Uni- 
versal Literature, are fresher, and w'ell worth reading. The last is 
especially good. 

Princeton. John D. Davis. 

Recent Explorations in the Holy Land and Kadesh-Barnca, the “Lost 
Oasis” of the Sinaitic Peninsula. By Camden M. Cobern, D.D., 
Litt.D. Published for the World’s Bible Conference by the 
Tribune Publishing Co., Meadville, Pa. Pp. 126. 

Dr. Cobern is widely known as an enthusiastic and attractive lec- 


turer on explorations in Bible lands, a work in which he has himself 
borne a part. 

The book is in two sections, as the title indicates. The first treats 
of discoveries in Palestine. The story of exploration to the year 1890 
is briefly told, and then the era of scientific exploration is treated at 
greater length. “The modern era in Palestinian study begins with 
Petrie at Lachish in 1890” (p. 27). The second part gives a highly 
interesting account of the visit of the author to Kadesh-Barnea, which 
was “practically lost to civilized man for nearly a thousand years” 
(p. 103), and even in modern times has rarely been reached by ex- 
plorer or traveler. 

Of special interest are the “General Conclusions from the Explora- 
tions in Palestine, west of the Jordan” (p. 83). We cite a few sen- 
tences. “Little Babylonian influence can be detected in the remains 
coming from the Hebrew era.” “All those who have followed the 
work of the excavators must have been impressed by the countless 
places where the discoveries have confirmed or illustrated the Bible. 
It is indeed very suggestive that in no single case, except possibly in 
one statement concerning Jericho, does any statement of the Bible 
contradict the findings of the spade, while in scores and hundreds of 
cases it is found that the statements of scripture concerning building, 
repairing, or destroying of city walls are beautifully confirmed by the 
ruins, and in every case the hundreds of statements concerning the 
facts of history and customs of civilization at each era are borne out 
by the excavations so far as this was at all possible.” “The results 
as we have given them must fill every lover of the Bible with joy. 
There has never been one discovery which threw discredit upon the 
knowledge and accuracy of the Biblicfal writers, while there have been 
multitudes of discoveries confirming the Bible narrative even in very 
minute particulars. The total impression given by the discoveries 
agrees in a most remarkable manner with the picture of life given in 
the Old Testament.” 

The volume is enriched by a number of illustrations. 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith. 

The Books of the Apocrypha. Their Origin Teaching and Contents. 
By the Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley, D.D., Examining Chaplain to the 
Bishop of London; Warden of the “Society of the Apocrypha”, 
London Diocese. New York, Chicago: Fleming H. Revell 

Company. 1914. 8vo; pp. xiv, 553. 

By previous labors in the field of extra-canonical research Dr. 
Oesterley was well qualified for writing this introduction to the Books 
of the Apocrypha. He is one of the colaborers of Dr. Charles in pre- 
paring The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in 
English, issued in 1913 by the Oxford University Press, and also a 
warden of the “International Society for the Promoting of the Study 
of the Apocrypha” founded by the Rev. Herbert Pentin, which pub- 
lishes a quarterly The International Journal of Apocrypha. The re- 



vived interest in this line of study to which said publications and the 
formation of the society named bear witness cannot but be highly 
welcome to all biblical students, especially to students of the New 
Testament. The movement is all the more commendable since on the 
whole it helps to keep itself free from an exaggerated valuation of 
the importance of the literature in question at the expense either of 
the Old or of the New Testament. This is not saying that we should 
not like to see the line between inspired Scripture and Apocryphal and 
Pseudepigraphical literature more sharply drawn than the authors of 
this school are inclined to do. Dr. Charles in his Eschatology does not 
hesitate to place the later uncanonical development in point of value 
above the Old Testament teaching, and that not merely in view of its 
advanced stage in the line of doctrinal progress, but also in regard to 
its intrinsic religious spirit and content. And Dr. Oesterley places all 
the wisdom-literature, outside and inside the canon, on an equal 
footing as “members of one family.” That Ecclesiastes forms part of 
the Word of God and Sapientia Salomonis belongs to a different cate- 
gory is nowhere emphasized, and that in the polemic which the author 
of Sapientia is supposed to wage against the views of Ecclesiastes the 
former was in the wrong the author does not say, although in the 
words quoted from Plumptre (p. 456), who already suggested such a 
polemic reference of the later to the earlier document, it is at least 
indicated, that the author of Sapientia may have misunderstood what 
he considered the erroneous teaching of Ecclesiastes. 

The present volume was originally intended as a contribution to 
“The Library of Historic Theology”. In the end it was not included in 
this, but issued separately on account of the size exceeding that set 
for the volumes in said series. It may be questioned, whether the bulk 
of the book ought not to have been reduced, irrespective of the desire 
to bring it within the limits of the serial publication. Of the 522 pages 
of the work only 277, that is a little more than half, are devoted to the 
discussion of the Apocrypha themselves. The preceding 245 are made 
up of Prolegomena and this rubric is conceived wide enough to sub- 
sume under it the whole movement of Jewish religious history begin- 
ning with the Hellenistic period. In addition to the various phases 
of Hellenism, the whole Apocalyptic movement, the Scribes, the Phari- 
sees and Sadducees, the Origin of the Old Testament Canon, the Un- 
canonical Books come in for extended discussion. It is quite true, 
of course, as the author remarks, that the Apocrypha cannot be under- 
stood without knowledge of the milieu in which they originated and 
to such knowledge the treatment of all the topics named undoubtedly 
contributes materially. At the same time interest in the environment 
ought not to overshadow that in the organism itself, as we fear has 
been the case in the present instance. Not that the mass of material 
brought together under the Prolegomena is of secondary value in 
itself. There is much in it that is highly valuable and interesting. 
E.g. in the painstaking discussion of the intricate subject of the 
Jewish term ganaz and the analogous Greek term apokryphos the author 



has rendered all non-experts a great service. It would have been better 
however to publish all this material in its present extended form 
separately, and give by way of Prolegomena to the Apocryphal Books 
a mere extract from it, such as is furnished by the author in the 
summaries appended to most of the chapters of the first section of the 
work. As it is, the interest of the reader may become to such an 
extent absorbed by the preliminary investigation as to have no strength 
and zest left for the part that relates to the Apocrypha themselves. 

The author ascribes considerable influence to the Hellenistic factor in 
the religious development of Judaism for the period in question. Once 
and again he expresses agreement with Friedlander, as e.g. where the 
hypostasizing of Wisdom is explained from Greek influence. On p. 94 
it is stated that the Pharisees developed out of the Platonic doctrine 
of the immortality of the soul their definite belief in the resurrection 
of the body. Much is made of the contrast between t.he Sadducees and 
the Pharisees, and this contrast, at least is the form of two opposed 
tendencies, is traced back to the pre-Maccabaean period, and utilized as 
a means for determining the religious attitude of the several writers. 
Thus Ben Sirach is classified with the precursors of the Sadducees. 
Unfortunately this has to be qualified in so many directions, that the 
help obtained from it for understanding the ideas of Ecclesiasticus 
is much reduced. In regard to Enoch the contention of Leszynski, ac- 
cording to whom the portions originally composing it, are of Sadducaeic 
provenience is recognized as correct in the case of Chaps. 72-83, because 
the astronomical views here developed seem to be connected with the 
Sadducaeic doctrine of the sacred calendar, but is rejected in the 
case of the other sections. On the other hand Charles’ view, who 
discovers in Enoch a Pharisaeic physiognomy, is found warranted only 
in so far as the pre-Maccabaean portions originated in the circles of 
the Chassidim, who were the ancestors of the Pharisees, but likewise 
gave birth to the Apocalyptists. The whole question of the preforma- 
tion of the later parties in the earlier period seems to remain in- 
volved in considerable obscurity, and especially as concerns the Apoc- 
alyptic movement we cannot say that the author’s careful presentation 
of the case, as he sees it, sheds much light on the historical ante- 
cedents of this movement either indigenous or extraneous to the 
sphere of Judaism. 

The author is not quite consistent in doubting on the one hand the 
correctness of the statement of Acts xxiii 8 to the effect that the 
Sadducees deny the existence of angels and spirits (p. 148), and on 
the other hand counting the absence of all mention of angels and 
demons in Ecclesiasticus a mark of the Sadducaeic complexion of this 
book (p. 340). 

We note that in regard to Wisdom the author evidently finished his 
writing before being able to take note of Focke’s Die Entstehung der 
Weisheit Salomo’s, published in 1913. Oesterley falls in line with the 
recent revival of the belief in the composite nature of Sapientia but 
divides, as against Focke, in the customary way between chaps ii-xi, 1 


and xi, 2-19. One of the arguments which Focke appeals to in favor 
of Palestinian origin of what he considers the older portion (chap, 
i-v.) and of its connection with the struggles between Pharisees and 
Sadducees, viz. that the enemies and persecutors of the pious are 
charged with having rejected the law of God, and therefore must be 
sought in Jewish circles, seems to lose its force through an observa- 
tion of Dr. Oesterley’s. He calls attention to the belief emerging in 
several places of the apocryphal literature, that the law was originally 
offered by God to the pagan world, and only after being rejected of 
them, domiciled in Israel. On the basis of such a view the writer of 
Wisdom could charge the Alexandrian persecutors of the Jews with 
rejection of the law. 

It is an omission that among the literature given the book of Couard 
Die religidsen und sittlichen Anschauungen der alttestamentlichen 
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphcn, 1907 is not named. On the whole 
the bibliography, while not professing to be complete, is discriminating 
and adequate. 

Of errata we notice that on page 236 Prov. xxii. 24 ought to be xvii. 
24 and on page 249 Job xxxviii. 12-28 xxviii. 12-28. 

Princeton. Geerhardus Vos. 

Paul’s Doctrine of Redemption. By Henry Beach Carre, B.D., Ph.D., 
Professor of Biblical Theology and English Exegesis, Vanderbilt 
University. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1914. Pp. xi, 
175 . 

The main burden of this book is that to Paul redemption is a 
“cosmical” process. “Cosmical” is meant as synonymous with “escha- 
tological”, and “dynamic”. The first two terms are intended to relate 
it to the world-ruling spirits, whose sway comes to an end in the 
world-crisis that separates between this age and the age to come, which 
crisis is inaugurated by the appearance and work of Christ. “Dy- 
namic” is intended to distinguish the author’s interpretation of the 
death of Christ from the sacrificial one, both in its objective form of 
an atoning vicarious death, and in its subjective form as a source 
of ethical influence. Undoubtedly there is to Paul’s doctrine of sal- 
vation a side which ascribes to the superhuman spirits a certain role 
in the process. It may also be admitted that this element in the 
Apostle’s teaching has not in the current interpretation received suffi- 
cient attention. But to make of it the ground-work of the whole 
Pauline soteriology, as the author attempts to do, is, in our view, 
unwarranted, and must lead to a thoroughly false perspective of the 
Apostle’s thought. Already in the emphasis which is placed upon the 
personal, spiritual existence of Sin and Death (as distinct from mere 
rhetorical personification), the author goes too far. Whatever ap- 
proach is made to a personal conception of these powers can be ac- 
counted for by the close connection of sin and death as cosmical 
factors with Satan and the evil spirits generally. In the author’s hands 
this hypostasizing of sin and death leads to a relative exoneration of 



man from the responsibility for sin : “Since the fall men have been 

handicapped by the fact that Sin secured an advantage over them for 
which they are not entirely responsible” (p. 31). The un-Pauline char- 
acter of this inference lies on the surface, and, since it seems a legiti- 
mate inference from the general position taken, we may well hesitate 
to ascribe the latter to Paul. In setting over against each other the 
propitiatory, atoning and the dynamic views of Christ’s death, the 
author operates with a false alternative. It is in Paul not a question 
of one or the other, but a question of both. Thus that the resurrection 
is made prominent by Paul as a saving factor can never be made to 
prove that the atoning death had not the emphasis to Paul’s mind 
traditionally ascribed to it. As a matter of fact the resurrection has 
its dynamic not only side by side with the effect of the death, but 
even in virtue of the latter. The whole exegetical discussion of the 
relevant passages is very partial to the dynamic and barely neutral to 
the forensic statements. The mere fact that Paul in every statement 
does not explicitly add the forensic rationale of the death of Christ, but 
contents himself with a general affirmation of its efficiency is unduly 
taken advantage of in favor of the other view. And where the author 
is compelled to face the forensic line of thought, he endeavors to be- 
little its significance by charging it to the Jewish associations of the 
Apostle’s earlier way of thinking or to the controversial exigencies of 
his argument in individual instances. Dogmatic prepossessions are 
also brought to bear as e.g. on p. 100: “This thought (viz. that the 
nature of God is such . . . that he cannot forgive sins if punish- 
ment is not inflicted on someone), . . . does violence to our notions 
of God, and ascribes to him a moral standard far below what Jesus 
required of men.” In Gal. iii. 13 the attempt is made to impugn 
Paul’s logic in representing Christ as having become a curse for us, by 
observing that the curse in his case is a particular curse, that of male- 
factors hanged, and therefore not adapted to bring to an end the 
operations of the entire law. As we understand Paul, he does not con- 
sider the hanging upon the tree as the ratio essendi of Christ’s curse, 
but only as the ratio cognoscendi. The equally pointed statement 2 
Cor. v. 21 receives no separate consideration at all. Very implausible 
further is the paraphrase given of the classical passage Rom. iii. 25 ff. 
The sacrificial, vicarious element is eliminated here by giving to 
SiKaioavvrf deov the benevolent sense after the manner of Ritschl, and 
it is actually proposed to understand IXaaT^piov as something serving 
the propitiation of man instead of God. The benevolent interpreta- 
tion of Stxatoo'vioy breaks down on the fact that its opposite in verse 25 
is avo\y, which postulates for the former a strictly punitive meaning. 
We cannot help feeling in this case and with reference to the argu- 
ment throughout that with less prepossession for the one side and 
with a little more exegetical good will towards the other side, the 
author would have succeeded in giving a far better balanced repro- 
duction of the Pauline doctrine. 

Princeton. Geerhardus Vos. 



Paul and the Revolt Against Him. By William Cleaver Wilkinson, 
Author of “Some New Literary Valuations”; “Modern Masters of 
Pulpit Discourse”; “Daniel Webster, a Vindication, with Other 
Historical Essays”; “The Epic of Paul”; “The Epic of Moses”; 
etc. Philadelphia : The Griffith & Rowland Press. Boston, Chi- 
cago, St. Louis, Toronto, Can. Pp. x, 258. $1.00 net. 

Dr. Wilkinson is of the opinion that the church of Christ is today 
“caught in a solemn crisis of its history”. The leading symptoms of 
this crisis is a revolt against the teaching of Paul, and the revolt is 
being led by educational institutions which command great wealth and 
exert a powerful influence. In the revolt against Paul the author sees 
a revolt against Christ, and he states his motive in writing as “concern 
for the cause of Christ Jesus, my Lord, with compelling sense of 
responsibility to do my part, humble though it be, toward the rescue of 
brother souls whom I see involved in danger through the prevalence 
of fatal error around them”. 

Was Paul, then, an authoritative teacher of Christianity? or did 
he depart so widely from the teachings of the Master that, in loyalty 
to Jesus, we must revolt against the authority of Paul? This is the 
question which Dr. Wilkinson discusses in the conviction that Paul 
was in the fullest sense an apostle of Jesus Christ. In the spectacle 
of Paul, “a lordly personality captive to an unseen Lord”, a great 
personality prostrated at the feet of Jesus, he sees “an argument to 
the degree of demonstration for the truth of supernatural Christian- 
ity.” Paul’s own relation to Christ supplied Paul with the master prin- 
ciple of his preaching and exemplified “the normal relation in which 
Christ stands to all human souls as their rightful Sovereign and 
Lord”. Paul has been frequently appealed to of late as a witness to 
the historical existence of Jesus ; on the rock of Paul, as Heitmiiller 
has said, are shattered all attempts to strike Jesus from the page of 
history. Dr. Wilkinson appeals to Paul for a different purpose, to bear 
witness to the reality of the living and exalted Christ. In his char- 
acter and career Paul furnishes an evidence, which holds “when 
every other anchor drags”, of the glorious life and activity of the 
ascended Lord, thus supplementing the witness of the Gospels which 
close with the Ascension. 

The purpose of much of the literature which, in recent years, has 
/ gathered about the Apostle is to cast him down from his throne of 
authority as an interpreter and revealer of the mind of Christ. Dr. 
Wilkinson is concerned with the voices which re-echo in America the 
revolt against Paul which is heard in certain circles of German criti- 
cism. Chief among these voices he believes to be that of the University 
of Chicago. As one who had some connection with the founding of 
the University and was among its original professors, he discusses 
(in the dramatic form of an imaginary trustee meeting) questions of 
academic freedom, of the University’s obligation of fidelity to the 
fundamentals of the Baptist faith, and what is described as its “jaunty 
gait of advance along perilous ways”. He sees in this institution the 



leader of the anti-Pauline revolt, and goes so far as to say that “the 
Christianity which Christ gave to the apostle Paul to teach — ‘Paulin- 
ism’, that is to say, to call it by the ill name its opponents are fond of 
using — must overcome the influence of the University of Chicago if 
it is to survive and have a long future in the world.” 

The closing chapter consists of a poem on Paul, not without merit 
in thought and expression, but scarcely equal in vigor to the author's 
polemical prose. Acts xxii. 20 seems to be forgotten when it is said 
(p. 141) that Paul makes no allusion to Stephen in speaking of his 
course as a persecutor. 

Lincoln University, Pa. Wm. Hallock Johnson. 


When I Have Crossed the Bar. By James Robinson. Philadelphia: 
The Westminster Press. 1915. Pp. 159. 

Mr. Robinson has given in a brief and popular form an outline 
sketch including all of the main problems of Christian Eschatology. 
It is a sane little volume and seeks carefully to avoid the speculations 
as well as the fanciful interpretations of Scripture so frequently in- 
dulged in when dealing with these great subjects. 

The Second Coming of Christ. Is It Pre-Millenial? By R. J. G. 
McKnight, Ph.D. Wilkinsburg, Pa. 1915. Pp. 71. 

This little pamphlet is a well balanced and clearly expressed refuta- 
tion of the Pre-Millenial view of the Second Coming of Christ. It is 
quite largely indebted to the admirable volume on this subject by Dr. 
David Brown and to that of Dr. D. MacDill, as the author himself 
states in the Preface. 

Princeton. C. W. Hodge. 

The Ten Commandments, with a Christian Application to Present Con- 
ditions. By Henry Sloane Coffin. Minister in the Madison 
Avenue Presbyterian Church, and Associate Professor in the 
Union Theological Seminary, New York City. New York: Hod- 

der & Stoughton. George H. Doran Company. 1915. 8vo, pp. 216. 
This is a book of sermons and not a theological treatise. Hence, 
we may not look for a discussion of the nature or ground or signifi- 
cance of the moral law. It is a volume of popular sermons. Hence, we 
may not expect more than an application of the Commandments to such 
questions as are interesting the man and the woman on the street. 
The sermons are but ten in number, and are short. Hence, not all or 
many even of such applications can be made. Those, however, that 
are presented are so legitimate and pertinent; and they are set forth 
in a style so pure and clear and crisp, with literary allusions so rich, 
with scriptural quotations so apt, and in a spirit of devotion to 
Christ so sincere and so pervasive, that they ought to be, and, doubtless, 



will be, read and pondered very widely. It is for this reason chiefly 
that the reviewer is constrained to call attention to certain points at 
which he is obliged to take exception to a book which he must admire 
and which he wishes that he could commend unqualifiedly. 

1. It is hardly correct to say (p. 22) that if Samuel had really believed 
in one God, he would have known that the God of Israel was also the 
God to Philistia; and that if he had recognized this, he would not 
have “devoutly hewed Agag in pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal”. The 
reason why he did so, as we learn from the narrative itself, was not 
that he himself was a polytheist, but that, for the numerous and 
aggravated offences of the Amalekites, Jehovah himself had com- 
manded the utter destruction of them and so, of course, of their king. 
The prophet is exonerated when once the history is taken at its face 

2. Our author’s position with regard to defensive war (p. 63) is far 
from satisfactory. On the one hand, he tells us that it is “hard to see 
how Christians, much as they condemn themselves, can do anything else 
but resist for the defense of their land and of others weaker than they”. 
On the other hand, he holds that, “while they commend themselves and 
their cause to God’s justice, they must beware of invoking his name 
as blessing their work of slaughter”. If, however, the providential 
control of God be universal and omnipotent, can his children ever find 
themselves compelled to do what they must condemn themselves for 
doing, or in doing which they may not and ought not to invoke God’s 
presence and blessing? Surely, if “the God of Calvary” is not with a 
band of man-slayers on land and sea, they have no right to be there 
either. We cannot side with the Quakers in their doctrine of non- 
resistance, but still less can we side with Professor Coffin in his 
doctrine of a resistance which God will justify, but will not bless. The 
former view does not make God inconsistent. The latter causes him to 
deny himself. What is really just God must bless; for what is really 
just is ultimately the expression of God himself. 

3. We cannot accept our author’s position on the Sabbath. “The 
attempt to make out,” he says (p. 77), “that in the New Testament the 
Sabbath is reestablished, and shifted from the seventh to the first day 
of the week, is merely to read into the New Testament what is not 
there.” . . . “Whether the Sabbath should be kept on the seventh or 
first day of the week we feel would be a matter of indifference to 
Christ.” “There is no divine law telling us how to spend it; we are 
not servants but friends.” That is, Professor Coffin denies the present 
obligation of the Sahbath as a holy-day; he appeals for its observance 
as such simply on the ground of appropriateness ; he holds that it is 
a matter of indifference whether such observance be connected with 
one day rather than another of the seven. Let us see what this involves. 

a. It means that Christians, because not servants but friends, are 
under no obligation not to be atheists, not to take God’s name in 
vain, not to commit adultery, not to steal. The Sabbath law is not 
distinguished from these laws. It is one of them. Together with the 



other nine commandments it constitutes the moral law of God, that 
which is binding in its own nature because based either on God’s 
nature or on his constitution of things. If it were merely a by-law, of 
force only under the old dispensation, why do we find it in the moral 
constitution for the race? If Professor Coffin is right, then the Old 
Testament has made a mistake so serious as to destroy its authority. 
It confounds the ceremonial with the moral as badly as Brahminism 
or Islam has ever done. And this, is not all or the worst. Our 
Lords’ authority is impugned. His attitude toward the Sabbath law 
was the same as that toward the other commandments. He obeyed it. 
He was evidently at pains to spiritualize it, and to purge it from 
ceremonialism, as he did the sixth and the seventh commandments in 
the Sermon on the -Mount. His Apostles did the same. Thus when 
Paul says, “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect 
of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day”, it is clear that what 
he has in mind is the Judaizers who would bind down on the church 
the old ceremonial requirements as to meat and drink and the Sab- 
bath. It is a wrong because Jewish conception of the Sabbath that he 
would oppose. It is as unfair to find in this oft-quoted text an attack 
on the Fourth Commandment itself as it would be to infer that when 
one writes against drinking he would deny the drinking of water to 
allay thirst. 

b. Our author denies the pertinence of the example of the apostolic 
church. It is not the fact that “the Lord’s day had its origin entirely 
apart from the sabbath and in its appropriateness only as the day on 
which Christ rose and the Spirit was given.” That its observance 
was not explicitly commanded by Jesus is true, but neither was the 
observance of the Second Commandment. It is, however, “a simple 
historical fact that the Christians of the apostolic age ceased to observe 
the seventh, and did observe the first day of the week, as the day for 
religious worship. Thus from the creation, in unbroken succession, 
the people of God have, in obedience to the original command, devoted 
one day in seven to the worship of the only living and true God. 
It is hard to conceive of a stronger argument than this for the perpetual 
obligation of the Sabbath as a divine institution. It is not worth while 
to stop to answer the objection that the record of the uninterrupted 
observance of the Sabbath is incomplete. History does 'not record 
everything. . . . Nothing but divine authority and divine power can 
account for the continued observance of this sacred institution from 
the beginning until now” (Hodge’s Systematic Theology, Vol. Ill, p 
330 j. Indeed, the apostolic sanction of the change of the Sabbath 
from the seventh to the first day of the week does not strengthen its 
obligation. It shows it to be an ordinance based not on anything 
peculiar to a temporary dispensation, but on what is as permanent as 
the constitution of man himself. He needs the holy day under grace 
as truly as under law, when a son of God as really as when his ser- 
vant. Nor may it be claimed that the Apostles acted without authority 
in the matter. They had absolute authority. “He that heareth you,” 



said our Lord, “heareth me.” Thus to set them aside is to deny him. 
This is just what the modern views of the Lord’s Day amounts to. 

c. Professor Coffin utterly misconceives the obligation arising out of 
appropriateness. He virtually denies that there is any such obligation. 
‘‘Whether the Sabbath should be kept on the seventh or on the first 
day of the week we feel would be a matter of indifference to Christ”, he 
says (p. 80). Now it is true that the particular day on which the 
Sabbath should be kept is not of the essence of the commandment. 
Any day may be set apart as the day of rest and worship, if there be 
no special reason why one day rather than the others should be so set 
apart. When, however, there is such a reason, then it can no longer 
be a matter of indifference which day is observed. Thus, if God had 
not instituted the Sabbath as the memorial of his completion on the 
seventh day of his work of creation, there would be no reason why 
Saturday rather than any other day should be kept as the day of rest 
and worship. Since, however, God did institute the Sabbath as such a 
memorial, then it would have been wrong under the old dispensation to 
keep as the Sabbath any other day than the seventh: and by how 
much the more important an event was the new creation in Christ 
Jesus than even the first creation; by so much the more were the 
supernaturally guided apostles, and church justified in changing the 
Sabbath from the seventh to the first day, and by so much the more 
also ought we to observe the Lord’s Day on that day rather than on 
any other. What would be thought were one to take the ground that 
it was indifferent whether Independence Day were celebrated on the 
fourth of July or not? The mere inappropriateness of the selection 
of any other than the anniversary day would make such selection 

4. Our author’s views on “the living wage” and on the individual’s 
right to demand work of the community are scarcely satisfactory. 
What is “a living wage”? A wage on which many would starve would 
mean luxury to others. Moreover, may that rightly be paid as a wage 
which is not earned ; and is it not the sad fact that, because of incom- 
petency or because of the over supply of labor, many are not worth 
in the labor-market what even their bare support requires? Un- 
doubtedly this raises a most serious problem for every person of 
wealth. Certainly no Christian may stand by and see his brother have 
need and himself do nothing. But what is done must be a service of 
love. Nothing may be given on the ground of justice or as a wage that 
is not earned. So to give would be essentially dishonest; and whatever 
else social reform may not be, it must, first of all and above all, be 

Nor is it otherwise as to the right to work. Does this undoubted 
right carry with it the right to demand work? We cannot think so. 
Is it not rather the right to be protected as one does his best both to 
do what the community needs to have done and to qualify himself to do 
it better? To hold, however, that the right to work is the right to 
insist that society shall make work for you smacks of dishonesty and 



has usually proved disastrous. It confounds the function and spheres 
of church and state, and no less an one than Dorner characterizes this 
as immoral. 

5. Even more unsatisfactory is our author’s position on capital pun- 
ishment. Again he is guilty of confusion. Because “vengeance be- 
longeth unto the Lord” and, consequently, it is our duty as private 
individuals even to forgive the murderer, he overlooks entirely the fact 
that the civil magistrate is “the minister of God, a revenger to execute 
wrath upon him that doeth evil”, and that “he beareth not the sword 
in vain” (Rom. xiii. 4). Capital punishment is not, therefore, “an 
ancient good made uncouth by time”. It is a requirement of the new 
dispensation as well as of the old; and it is a requirement of both be- 
cause of a reason as permanent as that man was made in God’s image, 
and, hence, the taking of a man’s life cannot be justly punished save 
by taking the murderer’s life (Gen. ix. 16). Only the utmost penalty 
that the state can inflict can be just in the case of such a crime. In a 
word, Professor Coffin’s position would do away with punishment as 

6. It is, perhaps, in our author’s discussion of marriage that we find 
most to take exception to. This is not so much because his own view 
of the sacredness and the blessedness of true marriage is defective as 
it is because he finds the Old Testament often, and the New Testament 
sometimes, presenting a low ideal of marriage. “Moses’ doctrine of 
divorce compromised the divine intention”, and even “Paul was not 
consistent with his own Christian principles in treating marriage” 
(p. 134). It would seem that Professor Coffin might have remarked 
that Moses gave his sanction to a freer use of divorce than Christ 
allows, not because God who inspired him had lowered the law, but, 
as Christ says, “because of the hardness of men’s hearts”. It was 
a concession in the interest of the law; and it was a concession, 
therefore, which God, who founded the law in the constitution of 
our nature, had the right to make. Such concession, of 
course, he should not have made in the case of a commandment like 
the Ninth grounded in hisi own immutable nature; but for him not to 
have made such concession in the case in question to low moral capacity 
that it might be developed would have been distinctly immoral. It 
would have been for him to fail to do what for him was right that 
what from the beginning had been the marriage law might be perfectly 

So, too, it is not fair to say that “Paul was not consistent with his 
Christian principles in treating marriage”. No man should be judged 
inconsistent with himself unless it is necessary to do so. Now Professor 
Coffin admits “that we may excuse Paul’s personal depreciation of 
wedded life by reminding ourselves of the hardships of the missionary 
career that made it inexpedient for him, and particularly of his firm 
belief that the world was shortly to end so that home and family ties 
appeared not worth forming” (p. 104). If, however, Paul’s teaching in 
the seventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians be thus 



eliminated, there will remain, speaking generally, only the sublime 
passage in the close of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians. Now how it could be charged against Paul on the basis of this 
passage that Paul never “seems to have grasped the true union of man 
and wife as comrades in faith and purpose” (p. 134), it is impossible 
for the reviewer to see. Have we not in the union of Christ and the 
church the very highest example of comradeship in faith and purpose, 
and is it not precisely in this union that Paul finds his ideal of marriage? 

7. What, however, is the most serious defect in Professor Coffin's 
book, and one that is specially serious because of its practically certain 
popularity, is the view which he holds of the Bible and which his 
interpretation of the Commandments requires. “If we wish to gain a 
clearly Christian view of marriage,” he writes, “we are compelled to 
take the theory that the Bible is the record of the gradual evolution of 
standards, and must be read with discriminating eyes that distinguish 
loftier from lower ideals ; nor dare we hesitate to affirm that the Bible 
writers are by no means unerring guides, but must be corrected by 
the supreme Christian authority — the Spirit of Christ in Christian con- 
sciences” (p. 134). What can this mean but that there has been no 
authoritative objective revelation of immutable right and that the ulti- 
mate moral authority is the self determined Christian conscience of 
each age? Indeed, this is precisely the position which our author 
takes. He is not willing to affirm that “the church should try to put 
into her rules over the ideal of Jesus”. “Our Lord has not left us a 
fixed law, but a living Spirit” (p. 146). 

Thus are the foundations of ethics and of sociology swept from 
beneath our feet. The “new theology is as revolutionary and must be 
as destructive in this sphere as in that of dogmatics. This is the most 
significant lesson which these interesting and able sermons teach. 

Princeton. Willliam Brenton Greene, Jr. 

Studies in Recent Adventism. By Henry C. Sheldon. Professor in 
Boston University. New York, Cincinnati: The Abingdon Press. 
50 cents net. 

This little book contains some very interesting historical notes about 
the various systems of Adventism and their founders and then goes 
on to give the cardinal assumptions in Adventist Argumentation and a 
criticism of these assumptions. Then follows a criticism of special 
teachings of Adventist parties and a list of objections to recent Adven- 
tism. All the book is so clear and so well written that it is easy to 
read, in fact, almost too easy. To one who goes to it for arguments 
against Adventism it will be helpful. 

But the question naturally arises as to whether it can be placed in the 
hands of those of our friends, who are drawn away through this 
ancient theory, in the hope that it will lead them to the truth. Unfor- 
tunately Dr. Sheldon’s work is not suited to do this. His argument is 
not detailed enough to meet the opposing position. He is dealing with 
a great system of theological interpretation based on a definite method 



of explaining Scripture. To one who believes in this method his objec- 
tion will seem inconsiderable and his way of interpreting Daniel and 
Revelation and his remarks on the fourth Commandment and on Elec- 
tion will seem so radical that they will prejudice the reader against the 
whole work. 

Adventism must be met by the church and conquered on the basis of 
the true meaning of God’s word interpreted by those who are well 
known as believers in its inspiration. If this is not done and ever the 
Adventists come to control any of our larger denominations their 
intolerant and presumptive spirit will work sad havoc in driving out 
or alienating many whom the church can ill afford to lose. 

Philadelphia. Gordon M. Russell. 


The Hour of Prayer. By Robert Freeman. Pastor of the Pasadena, 
California, Presbyterian Church. New York : Fleming H. Revell 
Company. Cloth, i2mo ; pp. 123. 75 cents net. 

These “Helps to Devotion When Absent from Church” are arranged 
as services for every Sabbath in the year. Each contains a Scriptural 
lesson, a meditation upon a text, a prayer, and a suggested hymn. They 
cannot fail to prove a great boon to the sick, to the “shut-in”, to those 
who lead in family worship, to “reverent souls on frontiers far from the 
sound of the Chapel bell”, to all “for whom the first day of the 
week is still the Day of the Lord”. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Successful Sunday-School Superintendent. By Amos R. Wells. 
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Cloth, i2mo; pp. 180. 75 
cents net. 

Those who realize the strategic importance of successful Sunday- 
School work are equally aware that this success depends in very largest 
measure upon the character of the superintendent. Here is a book, 
written by an expert, the study of which cannot fail to increase the 
efficiency of any one who holds this responsible position. Its thirty- 
one chapters deal with practically every phase of the life and duties and 
relationships of the leader of the forces of each local school. The 
chapters are brief, practical, direct, personal, and are the evident 
product, not of mere theorizing, but of wide practical experience and 
careful observation. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Place of Prayer in Christian Religion. By James M. Camp- 
bell. New York: The Methodist Book Concern. Cloth, i2mo; 
PP- 303. $1.00 net. 

This is no mere theoretical discussion of a familiar theme; it is 



rather an exposition of revealed truth relative to a matter of vital 
concern. It is the Biblical character of the book which gives it 
charm and value. It passes in review practically the entire body of 
New Testament teaching concerning prayer; yet almost every para- 
graph brings the scriptural truth to bear upon modern life, and upon the 
experience of the reader. 

"Part First” exhibits “The Place of Prayer in the Life of Jesus”; 
"Part Second” considers “The Place of Prayer in the Teaching of 
Jesus; " Part Third”, “The Place of Prayer among the Earlier Follow- 
ers of Jesus”; “ Part Fourth”, “The Place of Prayer in the Life and 
Writings of the Apostles”. " Part Fifth” treats of “The Place of 
Prayer in the Christian Church”, personal prayer, family prayer, social 
prayer, public prayer, prayer in church assemblies. “ Part Sixth” 
concerns “The Place of Prayer in the Christianity of To-day”. 

While not possessing claim to special originality, the volume is char- 
acterized by comprehensiveness, by simplicity and reverence. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Sunday-School Teacher and the Progrant of Jesus. By George H. 
Trull and Jay S. Stowell. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 
Goth, izmo, pp. 160. 50 cents net. 

This book promises to occupy a unique position in the work of the 
Sunday-School, and particularly in the department of teacher-training. 
Its purpose is to make every teacher and officer realize the nature and 
importance of the missionary enterprise, but more specifically to 
enable them to become efficient in giving missionary training, educa- 
tion and inspiration. The six chapters are entitled as follows : I. The 
Sunday-School Teacher and the Kingdom, II. The Sunday-School 
Teacher and the World-Wide Outlook of the Bible, III. The Sunday- 
School Teacher and the Homeland, IV. The Sunday-School Teacher 
and the Xations, V. The Sunday-School Teacher and Kingdom Invest- 
ments, \ I. The Sunday-School Organized for Kingdom Promotion. 

In order that the book may be specially helpful to teacher-training 
classes, each of these chapters is followed by a list of suggested “topics 
for discussion”, and by a carefully selected bibliography. It must not 
be concluded, however, that the book is designed for such teacher- 
training groups exclusively; it is a book intended for all Sunday-School 
workers ; and its reading and study cannot fail to make them see more 
clearly than before the relation of their work to the supreme tasks of 
the Christian Church. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Sunday School at Work. By Philip E. Howard, Amos R. Wells, 
Rev. A. H. McKinney, Ph.D., W. C. Pearce, E. Morris Fergusson, 

D. D., Rev. Franklin McElfresh, Ph.D., Rev. J. S. Stowell, Ralph 

E. Diffendorfer, Rev. George G. Mahy, Maud Junkin Baldwin, 
Mrs. J. W. Barnes. Edited by John T. Faris, D.D. Philadel- 
phia: The Westminster Press. Cloth, i2mo, pp. 452. $1.25 net. 



The mention of the names of men and women so widely known as 
experts in Sunday School problems, gave assurance that the volume, of 
which they are the joint authors, would prove invaluable to all who 
are interested in the work of the Sunday School. It is now two years 
since the first edition was published, and the enthusiastic reception 
given to it has led to the publication of this revised and enlarged edition. 
Sections have been aded on The Elementary Division, The Secondary 
Division, The Parents’ Department, and Worship in the Sunday School; 
so that the volume now forms what seems to be a complete manual of 
Sunday School methods. The most valuable addition, however, is the 
full Bibliography which is added at the close of the volume. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

Intimate Letters on Personal Problems. By Rev. J. R. Miller, D.D., 
selected and arranged by John T. Faris, D.D. New York: George 
H. Doran Company. Cloth, i2mo, pp. 289. $1.25 net. 

A great' and worthy service has been rendered by Dr. Faris in the 
publication of these letters. They reveal one secret of a life whose 
influence was unique in its power and extent. The secret is that of 
deep personal sympathy, expressed in messages of simple, sane, Chris- 
tion counsel. Dr. Miller was called a Christian Knight of the Golden 
Pen because of his ability to help, by his private correspondence, a 
host of people many of whom he never met. More than a score of 
letter-messages, were placed in the hands of his literary executor. It 
is from these that a careful selection has been made for this volume. 
The letters are here classified under the headings : “Getting Along 

with Others”, “The Anxieties of the Toiler”, “Beginning the Christian 
Life”, “Doubts and Doubters”, “Growing in Grace”, “Prayer Problems”, 
“Young People’s Problems”, “Questions about Marriage”, “To Anxious 
Mothers”, “The Hard Things of Life”, and “Comfort to the Be- 
reaved”. These letters are vital with human interest. Their publica- 
tion will help to extend and to make permanent the influence of one 
whose life was ever moulded by continual companionship with his 
divine Lord. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Offices of Baptism and Confirmation. By T. Thompson, M.A., of 
Saint Anselm's House, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 
Cloth, i6mo, pp. 253. Six shillings, net. 

This volume forms one of “The Cambridge Handbooks of Litur- 
gical Study” which are intended to help students who are entering 
upon the study of Liturgies, that they may proceed with advantage 
to the use of the large and more technical works upon the subject. 
They treat of the history and rationale of the several rites and cere- 
monies which have found a place in Christian worship, with some 
account of the ancient liturgical books in which they are contained. 

Thus the present volume furnishes an account of the liturgical 



history of baptism and confirmation. It traces the developments of the 
services, in early days in general outline, and later on in particular 
regions; secondly, it indicates the relation of the various rites to 
each other; and, thirdly, it gives assistance to those who desire to 
study the services in the ancient liturgical books. 

To most members of non-liturgical churches, the portion of the 
book which will be of deepest interest is Chapter IV, which deals with 
the primitive mode of baptism. By the literary, and particularly by 
the archaeological testimony, the author demonstrates the fact “that 
submersion was not the general practice of the early Church, but 
came to be thought the right mode at a later age when infant bap- 
tism was the prevalent custom”. Such a statement will suggest that 
the book has points of value to others besides the members of the 
Anglican communion. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

English Church Ways. By W. H. Frere, D.D., of the community of the 
Resurrection. Milwaukee. The Young Churchman Company. 
Cloth, i2mo, pp. no. $1.00 net. 

These four letters were delivered last year, at Petrograd, to an 
audience mainly Russian, at the invitation of the Russian Society for 
promoting “Raprochement between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox 
Churches.” They may be regarded as forming part of a series, for a 
similar course was delivered two years previous, by Father Pullen, 
entitled “The Continuity of the English Church,” and, previous to the 
outbreak of the European War, arrangements were being made by the 
Anglican and Eastern-Orthodox Churches’ Union of Great Britain for 
two similar courses on the Russian Church, to be given in England 
by two distinguished Russian Churchmen. The present lectures, by 
Dr. Frere, treat of “The Anglican Communion,” “Parochial Life,” 
“Clerical Life,” and “Community Life.” While not dealing with intri- 
cate points of theology or of history, they give a vivid picture of the 
Anglican church, conceived by one of its own representatives, somewhat 
idealized, and containing features which will prove to be both interest- 
ing and informing to members of other Christian communions. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

Church Efficiency. By D. C. Tremaine. New York: Fleming H. 
Revell Company. Cloth, i6mo, pp. 124. 50 cents. 

This is properly called “A Pastor’s Multutn in Parvo”, for in the 
very briefest form it presents practical and helpful suggestions cover- 
ing a large part of the problems of the modern church. In addition to 
Church Finance, and Men’s and Women’s Organizations, the author 
deals with Church Advertising, The Sunday School, and a variety of 
similar and related themes. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 



A Book of Offices. By The Bishops of Texas, Kansas, Newark, 
Springfield, and Fond du Lac. Milwaukee : The Young Church- 
man Co., Cloth, i6mo, pp. 179. $1.00. 

These services for occasions not provided for in “The Book of 
Common Prayer,” were compiled by a committee composed of the 
Bishops above named and presented to the House of Bishops of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in 1910; they were revised and again re- 
ported in 1913; they were referred back to the committee, corrected and 
re-issued in 1914; they are to be presented to the House of Bishops in 
1916; until then they may not lawfully be used in any diocese, without 
the authorization of a bishop. 

These services include “The Order for the breaking of ground for a 
new church,” “The Orders for the ! aying the foundation-stone of a 
church,” “The Benediction of a church,” “The reopening of a restored 
church,” “The consecration of a cemetery,” “The Form for the re- 
moval of the consecration of a church,” “The Form for the benediction 
of a new rectory,” and various other forms and offices suitable for 
special occasions. The book closes with a series of special litanies and 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

Challenge of the Church. By George H. Bennett. Cincinnati : Press 
of the Methodist Book Concern. Cloth, i2mo, pp. 164. $1.00 net. 

This attempted repetition of rationalism seems to be a curious com- 
bination of truth and error. It was written in response to a challenge to 
the Church, issued by the Oregon Rationalist Association, and addressed 
to the clergymen of Portland. The author endeavors to define the 
position of the Church, in reference to the Bible, cosmogony, prayer, the 
person of Christ, the immortality of the soul. He insists that the 
Bible is “inspired” — in spots ; those parts being inspired which relate 
specifically to Christ. This inspiration, marvellous to relate, is proved 
by the “Mosaic cosmogony” (which seems to have little specific refer- 
ence to Christ), which reaches its climax in Adam (who was a man 
"born of human parents, not differing from the pre-Adamites so much 
in physical characters or intellectual powers, but rather in mental and 
moral illumination.” This “inspiration” is further attested by fulfilled 
prophecy and by the triumph of the Bible. The divinity of Christ is 
proved by his claims, his teachings and his miracles, — no reference is 
made to his resurrection. Prayer is declared to be “not a failure,” for 
it was never intended to concern affairs which are not strictly “religious” 
and “spiritual”; — “Give us this day our daily bread, refers to spiritual 
bread” (p. 103). The Church is not a failure for she has overcome 
idolatry, slavery, polygamy, has encouraged moral reforms, science and 
literature, and she is just fulfilling her mission for “the end of univer- 
sal peace (!) draws near” (p. 123). The genius of matter, mind and 
force prove the existence of a personal God; and science is aiding to 

I 5 2 


establish the belief in immortality. Thus, in part at least, does the 
author “refute rationalism.” 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Bible and Life. By Edwin Holt Hughes, Bishop of the Metho- ' 
dist Episcopal Church. New York: The Methodist Book Concern. 
Cloth, i2mo, pp. 239. $1.00 net. 

This volume contains the first series of lectures, delivered at De 
Paw University, on the Menderhall Foundation. The design of this 
annual lectureship is, “To exhibit the proofs of the divine origin, 
inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures.” 

The first incumbent made no claims to technical biblical scholarship, 
and he interpreted the terms of the Foundation somewhat liberally; but 
his design was to show the bearing of the Bible upon “the great de- 
partments of human living.” The first lecture treated the Bible as 
“the book of life,” in the sense that “it grew from life, was tested by 
life” and finds the climax in the life of Christ. The subsequent lectures 
dealt with the teaching of the Bible as to “man, the home, education, 
work, wealth, sorrow, and practice.” 

There was no attempt in the lectures, to discuss critical or historical 
problems or minute points of doctrine, but the continual endeavor was 
for simplicity and concretness, and to hold the interest of college 
students, who have “a passion for reality.” 

Princeton. Charles iR. Erdman. 

The Christian Life. By Rev. R. H. Coats, M.A., B.D. Edinburgh. 
T. and T. Clark. Paper, 24010, pp. 164. Sixpence net. 

This little volume is intended for young people, for study-classes and 
for inquirers generally. Its successive chapters deal with (1) The 
nature and origin of the Christian life, (2) Its maintenance, (3) Its 
beliefs, and (4) Its duties. Under the first head are considered “the 
ideal,” “the hindrance of sin,” “the deliverance of grace,” “repentant 
faith,” the “new righteousness,” The life is to be maintained by 
prayer, Bible reading, and the sacraments. The beliefs are classified in 
relation to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christian 
duties are related to God, to self, towards the home, towards others, to- 
wards the state, towards the church. Such a brief survey of the book 
suggests its comprehensiveness, and may fairly suggest that it is a 
work, the mastery of which will require some maturity of mind, and 
some discrimination of thought, as it really forms a succinct summary 
of Christian doctrine. 

Princeton. Charles >R. Erdman. 

The After-Meeting. By John Balcolm Shaw. Philadelphia: The 
Westminster Press. Cloth, p. 87. 25 cents net. 

This minute volume presents a large subject, but treats it in a clear, 
impressive, and suggestive manner. The author is one who knows what 



he advises, for he has tried it. His message deals with the importance, 
leadership, method and sequel of the meeting which is held at the 
close of a regular church service, and which is designed to secure 
definite decision for Christ. It is a message which every pastor 
should consider thoughtfully. To some it will bring a novel idea, and 
possibly a new instrument for efficient service. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

Spiritual Culture. By the Rev. Frederick A. Noble. New York: 

George H. Doran Company. Cloth, i2mo, pp. 346. $1.25 net. 

This book contains a real message, and one which the modern church 
would do well to heed. The message is not novel, nor is its statement 
strikingly original ; but, in clear, forceful phrases, the author defines the 
nature of spirituality, and shows the need of spirituality, its marks, 
the aids to its culture, and the fruits of its culture. He conceives the 
spiritual life as that which affords us share in the principles, thoughts, 
emotions, qualities, and aims which go to make up the moral being of 
God. He argues that this life needs to be cultivated because of the 
secularizing tendencies of the times, because much that is supposed to 
be spirituality is lacking in virility and robustness, and because without 
spiritual culture education is incomplete. He finds the “marks of 
spirituality” in a “knowledge of God,” purity, love, and “interest in the 
things of the Kingdom.” He mentions as “aids to spiritual culture,” 
(1) High aspiration, (2) The exercise of faith, (3) Prayer, (4) 
Reading, (5) Meditation, (6) Service, (7) The right use of sorrows and 
disappointments, (8) Coming under the power of the Spirit, (9) Inti- 
mate fellowship with Christ. He shows that, as the “fruits of spiritual 
culture,” “the soul comes to its own, and life rises to its best.” 

The reader cannot fail to realize that, with aids so ready at hand, 
he should turn to a task of such supreme concern. 

Princeton. Charles >R. Erdman. 

A Man and His Money. By Harvey Reeves Calkins. New York: The 
Methodist Book Concern. Cloth, i2mo, pages 367. $1.00 net. 

The author contends strenuously for what he terms “God’s law of 
the tithe,” which he says “means absolute and unalterable coercion.” 
He regards the ratio as a matter of direct supernatural revelation. It 
is absolutely binding upon the Christian. The law is thus defined : 
“Men who worship God shall set apart each year, of all new value 
that passes through their hands, a tenth ; it is the ratio named by God 
himself as a man’s acknowledgment of the divine sovereignty. There is 
no record and there is no suggestion that this primal law was ever 
abrogated.” This tithe must be given directly and specificaly to the 
church, and cannot be devoted to any other object however religious 
or sacred. In addition to this tithe, provision must be made, on the 
principle of Christian stewardship, for the family, for the state and for 
the poor, and further still for objects which are beneficient and worthy. 



It is in fact the more general treatment of Christian stewardship 
which gives the book its value. Unlike most advocates of the tithing 
system the writer does not regard this as the fulfillment of stewardship, 
nor its administration, but as the acknowledgment of stewardship. 
Many who wil 1 not agree with the author in his discussion of the tithe 
will gladly accept his statements as to the Christian view of property. 
In contrast with the prevalent, but pagan conception of ownership, he 
declares that “property is a trust, and money the taker of it.” “To have 
is to owe, not own.” “God is the giver, the absolute owner of all 
things.” “God owns property, men possess it.” When we add to these 
statements the still more significant one that “stewardship is an attitude 
toward property and income” we are on a safe basis to consider the 
intricate and important problems which concern “a man and his money.” 
It is to be regretted that in so extended a volume so little space is 
devoted to the explicit and inspiring passages of the New Testament 
which deal with this practical theme. Nevertheless, it is a real service 
to call attention to the great fundamental fact of Christian stewardship. 
Only too dimly are its principles and methods defined in the minds of 
most Christians. A careful study of these principles cannot fail to 
result in an enlarged spiritual experience in the life of any individual, 
and a general adoption of these principles would go far toward solving 
the great missionary and evangelistic problems of the church. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

While the War Rages. By Henry A. Stimson, Pastor of the Manhat- 
tan Congregational Church. New York: The Abingdon Press. 

Goth. i6mo, pp. 104, 50 cents net. 

An endeavor is here made, in the light of Christian faith, to appraise 
some of the moral assets and to impress some of the obvious lessons 
of the present European War. Among the former the author mentions 
the development of patriotism, the manifestation of unselfishness, a 
new appreciation of the things of the spirit, the awakening of the 
common people, the growth of a constructive radicalism, the promise 
of a “New Ethics” and of a new setting forth of religion. Among the 
lessons to be considered, the call of the hour is for a new valuation of 
our ideal, for a larger charity for a recognition of God in daily life 
and a return to the ministry of prayer, for a realization of the power of 
example, for a deeper conviction in a final, moral accounting for men 
and for nations, for an endeavor to alleviate suffering, to promote 
peace and “to remember that evil can begin only in the human heart.” 
Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Story of Our Bible. By Harold B. Hunting. New York: 
Charles Scribner’s Sons. Cloth ; crown 8vo : illustrated. Pp. 290. 
This author accepts what are commonly called “the results of modern 
Biblical criticism”. It might not be unkind to use another popular 
phrase and to say that the chapters of this volume are “interesting if 



true.” The fallacy of the writer seems to be in stating conjectures as 
though they were historical facts, and in then building upon these 
conjectures fabrics of his own imagination. Thus, for instance, as we 
open the New Testament and begin his account of the Gospel narratives, 
we find him stating as a matter of history the unfounded tradition that 
the second Gospel was written by the young man who at the time 
of the arrest of our Lord was clad only in a linen sheet, and who 
fled, leaving this sheet in the hands of his pursurers. There has 
always been something of interest attached to the identification of this 
young man with John Mark, but the writer proceeds to suggest the 
vivid picture of the arrest and crucifixion and the general character of 
the second Gospel as dependent upon this mere supposition. He de- 
clares that Matthew consisted originally in a small group of tradi- 
tional sayings of Jesus which were written in Aramaic. “Matthew 
the Second” translated these sayings and combined them with the story 
written by Mark to form what is now regarded as the first Gospel. 
The opening chapters of this Gospel dealing with the virgin birth are 
regarded as possibly “merely popular traditions”. The fourth Gospel, 
the authorship of which is quite uncertain, was written to show that 
Jessus was divine “in the sense that all good men may be said to be 
divine”. “Jesus never claimed to be equal with God except as a 
representative of a King who is entitled to all the honors whch are 
due to the King who sent him.” 

In reference to the epistles, the earliest one of all is found in what 
has been commonly supposed to be the last chapter of Romans. This, 
however, was in reality only a brief note of introduction intended 
for Phoebe of Cenchreae. When we turn to the letters to the Corin- 
thians, the author states as a fact, what has often been suggested as a 
theory, namely, that these two letters really consist of four. The 
first letter can be found in Second Corinthians (vi. 14-vii. 1). The 
third letter in Second Corinthians (x-xiii). 

As to the entire New Testament, the author summarizes his view by 
stating that the authors of the books were all dominated by “the 
desire to spread abroad among men the ideas and way of living of 
Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth”. 

After his brief treatment of the New Testament books, the author 
next turns to the Old Testament where he states with absolute confi- 
dence the more extreme positions of the Biblical critics. He intimates 
that no portion of the Pentateuch, not even its legislation, comes from 
Moses, excepting perhaps an original abbreviated form of the ten 
commandments. Pie declares that ten were given in order that they 
might be remembered by being associated with the ten fingers of the 
learner’s hands, as the writer commits himself to the statement that in 
the days of Moses the art of writing was not known, and the rude 
nomadic Hebrew tribes needed to depend absolutely upon memory and 
oral teaching. The early prophets can be understood, according to 
the writer, by picturing to ourselves the modern whirling dervishes. 
The first attempts at history were undertaken by men who lived subse- 



quent to the days of Elijah and Elisha. They produced two histories, 
one in Judea and one in Ephraim, which were “finally woven together 
into a single narrative called the Judean and Ephraimite history”. It 
is suggested that “the stories which came down to the writers from 
antiquity probably contained memories of historical facts”. The au-' 
thor of the Chronicles is charged with a definite purpose of writing 
a history which would be partial to the interests of his own party. 
As might be expected, the author accepts the theory of two Isaiahs, 
but his vivid imagination clothes the second Isaiah with a personality 
quite original. Of course the books of Ruth, of Jonah, of Esther and 
of Job are regarded as purely imaginative romances which are dated 
in the time Xehemiah. Job is regarded as a compilation by a number 
of different writers. Daniel is placed in the time of the Macabees and 
belongs to the literature of pure imagination. These, and similar 
familiar theories, are presented by the author in a vivid and attractive 
form, but most readers would be rather inclined to choose the older 
views of the Bible which leave to us some place for belief in super- 
natural revelation and in divine inspiration. 

The closing chapters of this book trace for us the history and trans- 
lations which resulted in the production of the English Bible. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdmax. 

Parent, Child and Church. By Charles Clark Smith. New York: 
The Methodist Book Concern. Cloth ; pp. 179. 75 cents. 

With the practical purpose of this book few readers could be dis- 
satisfied, but from its theological and philosophical presuppositions, 
there will be many to dissent. The latter statements and implications 
are in the closing chapter of the book which deals with “The Theology 
of Childhood.” In denying “original sin”, or “innate sin”, and in insisting 
that all tendencies to evil have only physical causes, the writer raises 
questions which are familiar, and to which answers very different from 
his oven are given by some very wise and thoughtful men. It is not 
difficult, however, to receive from the book a definite message as to the 
supreme importance of the religious training of children, as to the 
great power of heredity and environment, as to the reality of moral 
choices, and as to the wisdom of adapting religious discipline to the 
successive periods of a child’s development. Best of all is the insistence 
of the author upon the duty of parents in performing a task of religious 
nurture which cannot be relegated to the church or the Sabbath-School. 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Churches at Work. By Charles L. White. New York: Mission- 
ary Education Movement of the United States and Canada. Cloth, 
i6mo, pp. 226. 75 cents. 

The writer is concerned with the evangelization of the United States 
of America. He describes its composite population and the character 
of its churches. He then treats of the difficulties which must be over- 
come in aggressive Christian work, including race friction, industrial 


1 57 

friction, social unrest and materialism. He suggests, that the methods 
and message of the early Christian church must be relied upon for 
success in service ; that the individual follower of Christ must use to 
the utmost his personal influence; that the local church must exhibit a 
definite interest in the social and economic conditions of the community; 
that missions must be established and supported in the newly settled 
sections of the West, and among the vast foreign population of immi- 
grants in the East. For such a complex and difficult task master work- 
men are needed. In spite of all the difficulties and the problems 
involved, it is the opinion of the writer that America “may become 
Christian in the fullest sense and influential among the nations, if her 
highly organized Christian forces, with modern tools in hand, can feel 
the individual responsibility and have the consecration and personal 
enthusiasm of the Christians of the first century.” 

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman. 

The Christian Doctrine of Prayer. Edited by James Hastings, D.D. 

Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1915. Pp. xi, 448. $3 net. 

This is the first of a series of books on the great Christian Doctrines 
— Prayer, The Atonement, Faith, The Holy Spirit, Miracles, The Per- 
son of Christ. The table of contents indicates how thoroughly the 
subject has been studied — Introduction; The Nature of Prayer; Ad- 
dress and Adoration ; Confession ; Petition ; Intercession ; Thanksgiv- 
ing; First Principles of Prayer; Personal Demands to Prayer; Minor 
Aids to Prayer; Scientific Objections to Prayer; Philosophical Objec- 
tions to Prayer; Value of Prayer; Hindrances to Prayer; Encourage- 
ments to Prayer; Perplexities of Prayer; Answers to Prayer; Prayers 
to the Trinity; Fit times for Prayer; Manner of Prayer. 

Prayer lies at the heart of religion. Involving as it does the rela- 
tion of man to God, and to the constitution of the universe in which 
he lives, the theory of prayer is beset with perplexities. And as it is 
the expression of the mind, the affections, and the will, the practice of 
it is attended with many difficulties. It cannot be said, of course, that 
this volume solves all the mysteries that gather about prayer, but it 
throws upon them the light of Scripture and experience ; and if it 
cannot answer all the demands of reason yet it meets the needs of 
faith. “Prayer too is only a foreseen action of man which, together 
with its results, is embraced in the eternal predestination of God. To 
us this or that blessing may be strictly contingent on our praying for 
it ; but our prayer is nevertheless so far from necessarily introducing 
change into the purpose of the Unchangeable that it has been all along 
taken, so to speak, into account by Him” (p. 260). The learning of 
the scholar, the wisdom of the philosopher, the faith of the believer are 
everywhere manifest. The mind is illumined, the heart comforted 
and strengthened, the will roused to action. The most learned and the 
humblest alike find their portion in this noble volume. 

Each chapter is accompanied with illustrations drawn from a wide 
range of reading extending throughout all ages of the church, from 



the days of its founding to Bergson and Jowett and Andrew Murray. 
But no index has been provided to this wealth of material — no index of 
any kind whatever. That is the most serious defect of the book, and 
it should by all means be remedied in future editions. The list of books 
prefixed to the several chapters is far from complete. 

The words of George Meredith might well find a place, setting forth 
as they do one side indeed, but a most important side of the truth — 
‘‘Who rises from prayer a better man, his prayer is answered.” 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith. 

The Oratory and Poetry of the Bible. By Ferdinand S. Schenck, 
D.D., LL.D., Professor of Preaching in the Theological Seminary 
at New Brunswick, N. J. George H. Doran Co. 1915. Pp. viii, 
249. $1.25 net. 

Dr. Schenck tells us in the preface that “for the past fifteen years 
I have tried to incite my students in New York University, in Rutgers 
College, and now in the Seminary, to read the Bible not as a task but 
as a pleasure, and have had fair success. ... I send this book forth 
that it may do for all who read it what I have tried to do for the 
college students, quicken their interest in reading the Bible.” 

The book is in three parts. 1. A brief introduction, treating of the 
nature of oratory. 

2. Short Stories of Great Orations. Here the method employed is the 
common literary device of letters purporting to be written by those 
who actually witnessed the events which they describe — the method 
familiar to a former generation through The Prince of the House of 

To this section ten chapters are given, covering the history of 
Scripture oratory from Moses to Paul. It must be said that oration 
is not always the most satisfactory term. The method of Jesus’ teaching 
was rather conversational than oratorical. 

3. The Poetry of the Bible, Epic, Dramatic, Didactic, and Lyric. 

In view of Lucretius and Shelly it is bold to affirm without qualifica- 
tion that “Atheism cannot hope to produce great poetry” (p. 210). 

The style is clear and agreeable, though there is room for improve- 
ment in the structure of the sentences, and especially in the punctua- 
tion, which is often rather a hindrance than a help. 

Why is Elohem used instead of Elohim? (several times on page 237). 

The moderation and restraint, the simplicity and power of the 
Scripture narrative impresses us anew in the light of every attempt 
to reproduce or paraphrase the story. In this volume as in so many 
others adjectives and adverbs are multiplied to deepen the impression. 
How often we read here great, splendid, wonderful, thrilling, marvel- 
lous; and how seldom in the Scripture. This is the way men naturally 
express themselves in presence of that which startles and amazes : 
the more remarkable is the unadorned style in which the Bible writers 
tell their tale. 

Princeton. J- Ritchie Smith. 



The Book of Faith in God. By John T. Faris, D.D. George H. 

Doran Co. 1915. Pp. 295. $1 net. 

This book consists of fifty-seven brief chapters, some of them cover- 
ing little more than a page, divided into twelve parts, each treating of 
some particular aspect of faith : In the Hands of God. The Reality 

of God’s Guidance. First Lessons. The Justification of Faith. En- 
couragements. The Call and the Response. As little Children. In 
God’s Keeping. In Time of Trial. Everyday Heroes of Faith. Serv- 
ing in Faith. In Life and in Death. It is described in the preface as 
“a narrative of incidents in the lives of some of those whom God has 
taught to confide in Him.” The illustrations are drawn from many 
sources, and furnish impressive witness to the reality and power of 
faith. Unhappily no index of them is provided and even the lists 
of books from which the illustrations are cited is imperfect. 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith 

The New Personality and Other Sermons. By Frederick F. Shannon. 

Fleming H. Revell Co. 1915. Pp. 205. $1 net. 

Mr. Shannon is pastor of the Reformed Church on the Heights, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. The sermons contained in this volume are fresh in 
thought, and clothed in a vigorous and attractive style, which, however, 
does not always escape the vice of fine writing, of straining after 
effect. A little pruning and repression would work decided improvement. 
The illustrations are drawn from a wide range of reading in poetry and 

Sometimes the thought is pushed beyond the legitimate boundaries of 
the text. There is nothing for example in the parable to justify the 
title given to the Good Samaritan, “A Soul Expert”. In the En- 
chanted Pursuit, on the text, Follow after Love (1 Cor. xiv. 1), he 
seems to miss the quality for which Paul gave the first place to love, 
its utility. By this the apostle tests and measures every gift and grace 
of the Christian life. When we read the eloquent periods of this ser- 
mon, in which love is lifted high above all the talents and attainments 
upon which men pride themselves, we still question, Why? What is 
it that gives love the foremost place? The sermon does not give us 
Paul’s answer. 

The thought usually moves upon a high plane, but how could the 
preacher suffer this sentence to stand, — “So positive was he (Paul) 
about that palatial new house he would enter with the last heart- 
throb of the old, that he was happier than a mother with the first 
prattle of her babe; happier than a father with the first expression 
of love from his little son ; happier than a boy with his pair of 
new boots ; happier than a sailor who has sailed around the world and 
is home again” (p. 145)? The jarring note of the third illustration is 
the more conspicuous because it appears to be the only instance of the 
kind in the whole book. 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith. 



The Burthen of the Weeks. By the Rev. James Black, M.A. George 
H. Doran Co. Pp. xii, 294. $1.25 net. 

The title is taken from In Memoriam. How it is related to the 
twenty-five sermons that compose the volume does not clearly appear. 
The discourses are well prepared, instructive, helpful. The thought is 
clear and strong, the spirit devout, and the style fresh and vivid. 
Truth is put in a way that arrests and holds the attention. We may 
note particularly the titles of the sermons: Religion as a Fine Art; 

Measuring Madness; Playing on the Low Strings; the Gain of Adven- 
ture; a Tale of Two Cities. Recent volumes indicate that preachers 
are seeking titles that shall express the thought of the text in the most 
striking and suggestive way. 

The book is well and accurately printed. Iimortal is found on p. 223. 

The method pursued is topical rather than textual. And this may 
explain the choice of First Thess. iv. 3 as a text for the general subject 
of sanctification. The verse is divided in the middle, and severed from 
its connection without a hint of its original force. Paul is speaking 
of a single aspect of sanctification here — “For this is the will of God, 
even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication.” 

Attention was called in a recent review of a volume of sermons to 
the inordinate use of I. The same criticism may be passed upon 
these sermons, though the fault is not carried to the same extreme. It 
seems to be the tendency of recent preaching, indeed, if we may judge 
from the published product, to make the personality of the preacher 
unduly prominent. The conversational mode of preaching is the best, 
but it has its dangers, and the preacher must beware of talking too 
much and too familiarly about himself. His thought and study and 
experience may pervade the sermon, but should be like the leaven, 
everywhere present and operative but never obtruded. 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith. 

The Christian Faith: A Handbook of Christian Teaching. By W. C. 
Clark, D.D. Boston: Sherman, French & Company. 1915. Pp. 

347. $1 :50 net. 

This is the work of a pastor of ripe experience. It is his purpose to 
set forth the evidences and doctrines of Christianity in clear and simple 
terms which all may understand ; and he has succeeded admirably. The 
learning is adequate, the style pleasing, the doctrine sound. It is 
specially adapted to the needs of those who are beginning the Chris- 
tian life, though the mature disciple may find much to clarify his 
thought and confirm his faith. 

A brief Introduction is furnished by Prof. R. A. Webb. The great 
themes of Scripture teaching are presented in thirty chapters. It is 
unfortunate that there is no chapter devoted to the Holy Spirit. 
Of course his work is considered at length in various places, but a 
separate chapter upon his Person and office should not be wanting in 
a treatise that undertakes to trace the outline of Scripture teaching. 

Attention should be called to certain mistakes and defects. The 



authorized version is uniformly used, even when it is manifestly in 
error, and the Revised Version appears to be entirely ignored. As 
instances of faulty renderings which are retained, we may note: 
“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels”, where the Revised 
Version’s “but little lower than God”, should at least be noted. “We 
love him , because he first loved us.” “The spirit itself “Great tribu- 
lation” for “the great tribulation.” It is a serious fault to rest upon 
the traditional text as if it were inspired, and overlook all that modern 
scholarship has done to bring us nearer to the sense of the original. 
And why cling to the phrases, “Everlasting punishment” and “life 
eternal”, when in both cases the adjectives is the same? 

A passage from Hosea is referred to Amos (p. 271). In citing the 
definition of God from the Shorter Catechism justice is omitted (p. 70). 

Some mistakes in spelling occur : Acutal for actual (p. 109) ; men for 
man (p. 292) ; McChaine apparently for McCheyne (p. 158) ; volution 
for volition (p. 107) ; Bartemus (p. 182). Rom. ix. 5 is made to 
read, “Who is God over all, and blessed forever” (p. 147) ; and Rom. 
x. 4, “Christ is the end of the law of righteousness to everyone that 
believeth” (p. 233). Superstition occurs for supposition on page 98. 

James and Jude should be named apostles, nor Paul excluded from 
the list of apostolic writers of the New Testament (p. 41) without at 
least a word of explanation. 

The attempt should not have been made to impose Usher’s chronology 
upon the Scripture. We read, “As to the time since man was created, 
the Bible does not speak with definiteness. The best interpreters, 
comparing Scripture with Scripture, place that time at about six 
thousand years ago” (p. 76). But it is not true that this opinion is 
held by the best interpreters, unless by the best interpreters is meant 
those who hold this opinion. We may cite the most conservative 
scholars to the contrary. Dr. Orr, in his Problem of the Old Testa- 
ment, affirms that “in Egypt we find that the hieroglyphic system was 
already complete by the time of Menes, founder of the first dynasty 
(c. 4000 B.C.)” (p. 79). He speaks of “the extraordinary light of 
civilization which shone in the Tigro-Euphrates valley, and in the 
valley of the Nile, milleniums before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, 
or Moses led his people out of Egypt” (p. 396), and declares that “the 
world was already old in the times of Jacob and Moses” (p. 397). 
Davis’ Bible Dictionary pronounces Usher’s chronology “inaccurate and 
obsolete”. Such different authorities as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the 
Standard Bible Dictionary, Davis’ Bible Dictionary, and the Catholic 
Encyclopedia agree in placing Sargon king of Babylon about 3800 B.C. 
It is the general tendency of modern scholarship in the light of recent 
exploitations to throw the origin of civilization further back than the 
date formerly assigned. 

The complaint sometimes urged against theological treatises that they 
give more space to the representation of hell than of heaven finds 
fresh justification here. The recognition of friends in the life to come 
is a theme important enough to warrant more detailed consideration, 



and the volume would gain in symmetry if it closed with the chapter on 
heaven as the climax and crown. 

We have called attention to these defects because the book has so 
many excellent features and is so well adapted to its purpose that we 
should wish to see it freed from blemish. The companion volume on 
“The Church: Its Government, Worship, Sacraments and Work”, for 
which as the preface indicates, material has been prepared, will be 
awaited with interest. 

Princeton. J. Ritchie Smith. 

The Springs of Joy and Other Sermons. By Robert F. Horton, D.D. 
Fleming H. Revell Co., pp. 222. $1 net. 

Joy is a Christian duty. But how shall we rise above the cares and 
sorrows, the sufferings and sins of life, into the serene atmosphere of 
rejoicing and praise? That is the question which Dr. Horton attempts 
to answer in the series of sermons with which the volume begins. He 
reminds us “that God has entrusted to us all certain great faculties 
which put us into touch with the fountains of joy, and that those 
faculties are so well within our control that we can use them or neglect 
them, train them or pervert them as we will.” He finds six distinct 
faculties that serve this purpose. “There is the faculty of imagination, 
which finds its expression in act ; there is the faculty of spiritual insight, 
which we sometimes call faith ; there is the faculty of hope, which is 
said to spring eternal in the human breast; there is the faculty of love, 
which requires much explanation, if it is to be applied in this connection, 
but fully repays our consideration; there is the faculty of discursive 
reasoning, w'hich is little understood, and therefore, little used, but is 
one of the great faculties of God for the creation and perpetuation 
of joy; and, lastly, there is the faculty of the persistent will, the will- 
power trained and used for a definite purpose.” These faculties are 
treated in successive chapters, which are sermons in matter though 
not in form. Considerably more than half the volume is devoted to this 
theme. The remainder of it comprises four discourses on Christ’s 
Method with the Bad Man (Zacchaeus), Strength from Christ, Spiritual 
Revival, the Lordship of Christ. 

The style is clear and agreeable, though not striking; the spirit is 
evangelical ; the thought, while rather obvious and commonplace, is 
wholesome and helpful. 

Princeton, J. Ritchie Smith. 

The Anti-Christ. By Richard Hayes McCartney. New York: 
Charles C. Cook. 

With the conviction that in the Bible the Anti-Christ is second in 
importance only to the Christ, we have a hundred pages of rhyme in 
which a great deal of history is related to the subject in hand. It is 
recent enough in material to include references to the present European 
War. The interpretations are often fanciful, as might be expected. 


The following (p. 64), is one of the best portions and gives a good 
idea of the author's point of view and of the execution: 

“For neither Christ, nor the. Apostles say, 

His church should win a universal sway! 

The church misread the Scriptures Old and New, 

For centuries a wrong conclusion drew — 

Led by the Devil — they made daring claim 
They are to win for Christ a world wide fame — 

Bring all the world to own His Blessed Name.” 
Princeton, N. J. Chas M. Cantrall. 


The Modern Study of Literature. By Richard Green Moulton. Chi- 
cago : University of Chicago Press. 

Professor Moulton is well known to all students of English Litera- 
ture by his various contributions to contemporary English scholarship. 
Such works as his “Literary Study of The Bible”, “Shakespeare as a 
Dramatic Artist”, “World Literature”, “Shakespeare as a Dramatic 
Thinker”, are sufficient illustration of his wide literary learning and 
accurate scholarship. Professor Moulton holds the Chair of Literary 
Theory and Interpretation in the University of Chicago and he gives to 
the volume before us on the title page the caption of his chair. He 
calls it An Introduction, not proposing to compass the content of so 
vast a subject, but hoping to present a discussion “serviceable in uni- 
versity class-rooms . . . and interesting to the general reader”. The 
subject is presented in six books as follows: I. Literary Morphology, 
II. The Field and Scope of Literary Study, III. Literary Evolution, 
IV. Literary Criticism, V. Literature as a Mode of Philosophy, VI. Lit- 
erature as a Mode of Art. Under these various captions he studies 
such topics as The Elements of Literary Form ; The Study of Litera- 
ture ; The Epic, Drama and Lyric ; The Functions of Poetry ; The 
Subject Matter of Literature and Language as a Factor in Literary 
Art. These, it will be noticed, are comprehensive topics and the author 
wisely confines himself to mere suggestion. The volume is thus instruc- 
tive, demanding careful reading on the part of the student and opening 
up many questions “ill to solve”. 

The cardinal fault of the treatise is that of all of Doctor Moulton’s 
treatises — the undue emphasis of mere technique and the carrying of 
analysis beyond all legitimate and helpful limits. This method, of 
course, begets and demands an order of English style that is recondite 
and rigid to a fault, often wearying the reader by the complexity of the 
study. Professor Moulton inserts in his book numerous diagrams 
illustrative of literary forms and types, such as Floating and Fixed 
Literature, Differentiation of Poetry and Prose. While such literary 
diagrams may serve certain beneficent purposes, they impress us, in the 
main, as positively harmful as they serve to direct the mind of the 



student from the intensive and appreciative study of literature to its 
purely theoretical and analytical study. 

In fine, literature more than any other branch of academic pursuit 
calls for freshness, flexibility and a kind of freedom from rigid logical 
method, appealing to the taste, feelings and aesthetic instincts. The 
general reading public no less than the university student looks for such 
an interpretation of literature. 

Princeton University. T. W. Hunt. 

Browning — How to Know Him. By William Lyon Phelps, Ph.D. 

Indianapolis : The Bobbs-Merrill Co. 

This volume is one of a series under the general editorship of W. D. 
Howe, and is a valid contribution to the subject in hand. As Mr. 
Lowell writes of Shakespeare, Once More, so we have Browning, Once 
More, this fact in itself being a sufficient testimony to the value and 
richness of the topic under discussion. Any author who has written 
intensively and with profound and wide reaching philosophic grasp, 
will be a perpetual subject of study and criticism. 

Professor Phelps presents his subject under the captions The Man; 
Browning’s Theory of Poetry; Lyrics; Dramatic Lyrics; Dramatic 
Monologues; Poems of Paradox; Browning’s Optimism, — the first and 
second and last of these seven chapters being singularly suggestive. 
It is in this last chapter, Browning’s Optimism, that we find the secret 
of the hold he has and will always have on the minds of his readers, 
despite all faults of style and structure that may be adduced against 
him, while in his apparently contradictory views, such as we have in 
“Poems of Paradox”, we have the explanation of his appeal to all 
inquiring minds. 

Browning and Tennyson supplement each other and together make up 
a poetic unit, embracing the philosophic and aesthetic in due relation. 

Professor Phelps’ discussions are stimulating and suggestive and 
always expressed in clear, facile and vigorous English, making us think 
as we read and satisfying our best artistic instincts. While Professor 
Phelps is somewhat more generous than many of us would be in en- 
dorsing Browning’s irregular and, at times, incomprehensible English, 
we can well understand how all such limitations in his view disappear 
in the light of the poet’s wide intellectual range and genuine poetic 

English students owe no slight indebtedness to Professor Phelps 
for his recent contributions to literary criticisms. 

Princeton University. T. W. Hunt. 

An Art Philosopher’s Cabinet. By George Lansing Raymond, L.H.D. 

Edited by M. M. Miller, Litt.D. New York, London : G. T. 

Putnam & Sons; The Knickerbocker Press. 1915. 

This book forms a companion to the author’s Poet’s Cabinet, the 
two books thus presenting, in prose and verse, a comprehensive and 
instructive representation of the author’s writings. Students of litera- 



ture, art and aesthetic criticism are well acquainted with Professor 
Raymond’s numerous and valuable contributions to these several sub- 
jects of study. It is from his System of Comparative Aesthetic, that 
most of the submitted selections are taken. 

That elaborate System includes eight fundamental topics : Art in 

Theory; The Representative Significance of Forms; Poetry as a Repre- 
sentative Significance of Forms; Poetry as a Representative Art; 
Painting, Sculpture and Architecture as Representative Arts ; The 
Genesis of Art Form; Rhythm and Harmony in Poetry and Music; 
Proportion and Harmony of Line and Colour; The Essentials of 
Aesthetics. As the editor well expresses it, — “This is the only complete 
system of art interpretation that has as yet been produced in any 

To our mind the great excellence of the work lies in the fact that it 
unifies all the fine arts, bases their existence and value on vital 
philosophic principles, and coordinates the theoretical and practical so as, 
on the one hand, to preserve the arts from mere speculative interest 
and, on the other, from mere commercialism. 

Professor Raymond has made this study his life work, bringing 
into its service an unusually wide variety of literary knowledge, a 
highly cultivated aesthetic taste and a profound insight into those 
cardinal principles that underlie all forms of truth. 

To select special examples from this rich collection is almost invi- 
dious. Such examples as Architecture, representative of Thought ; Art 
as Mental and Spiritual; Beauty in Expression; Culture as Influenced 
by Art; Dramatic Art; Form and Spirit; Morality as Influenced by 
Any Art; Spiritual Suggestiveness of Art, — are quite sufficient to 
indicate the range and suggestiveness of the book, while all these 
suggestions and discussions are presented in that clear and convincing 
English style of which Professor Raymond is a master. 

Princeton University. T. W. Hunt. 

Out of Work. A Study of Unemployment. By Frances A. Kellor. 
New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. 1915. 8vo, 
pp. 569. $1.50 net. 

Unemployment is not a modern problem. Its existence in the 
twentieth century has become emphasized, not because of its greater 
intensity only, but because of the present means for publicity of 
actual conditions, the more scientific methods applied to the solution 
of economic and social problems, and the facilities with which the 
unemployed may appeal to the public for a consideration of their 

Out of Work made its first appearance in 1904; and while there has 
been little progress in the organization of the labor market since that 
time, the extraordinary conditions of unemployment last winter have 
necessitated some revision, to make the book describe accurately the 
present situation, and to suggest such remedial measures as may be 
undertaken or projected. 


The book is a thorough, serious and intelligent analysis of the prob- 
lem of unemployment as presented by the actual conditions of to-day, 
based on the writer’s direct, personal knowledge, country-wide search 
for data and years of study. While thorough, the book is not a techni- 
cal thesis. It is not an uninteresting display of statistics; in fact, 
statistics are almost altogether eliminated from this study. It is 
a popular treatise, written as an appeal to the public in behalf of the 
large number of the unemployed, making definite suggestions for im- 
mediate relief that may be adopted at once by individual employers, 
industrial organizations, cities and even the United States Government. 

Unemployment is dealt with from the standpoint of “involuntary 
idleness”. Vagrancy is not considered. A searching examination of 
the methods of General Labor Agencies, Intelligence Offices, Agencies 
for Skilled Labor, Philanthropic and Civic Experiments, and Public 
Employment Offices to procure employment, makes it apparent that 
“neither business nor labor can organize or control” the labor market. 
Government regulation by cities and states has failed because of a 
lack of uniformity of laws. To solve the problem, the volume of 
work must be steadied or increased, the equipment of the worker 
must be improved, the individual worker must be safeguarded, and his 
employability when he is out of work must be maintained. A well- 
regulated, organized, neutral labor market is the only agency that 
can meet the situation. That agency in this country will ultimately 
be the municipal bureau for local work and the Federal bureau for 
inter-city and inter-state work. 

However, there is no panacea for unemployment, no one sure method 
for its elimination or prevention, the last word has not yet been 
said; but the problem will be mastered by “the sum total of what the 
average citizen does as a business man, by what the investor as an 
employer does, by what each of us does in office, in business, in 

The last chapter of the book is a programme for America, urging 
an immediate, short-time national programme for the immediate relief 
of the unemployed ; advising Federal Employment bureaus, public 
works, land-settling and a “get together” policy in cities. A long 
time programme for prevention of unemployment is presented, look- 
ing forward to obtaining accurate information and statistics regarding 
unemployment in the United States, organization of the labor market, 
industrial organization with a view to the reduction of seasonal and 
casual labor, direction of workers into industry, and some form of 
insurance which will relieve the unemployed. 

We note the following excellent features of the book: 

i. Its deep sympathy for the unemployed. They are not presented 
as an inevitable problem, forced upon those who are more thrifty, 
nor as an alien race, nor as fit subjects for academic discussion only. 
They have been contributors to the public welfare, are anxious to 
continue their interest, and are worthy of the best attention an 
interested public can give. “The entire problem of unemployment 


must be made a problem of applied religion” is the recommendation of 
the Inter-Church Employment Committee of New York City. 

2. Regular employment alone is recognized as the only respectable 
means of relief. Reinstatement in work is the only final service to the 
unemployed. The fact is, no form of assistance is so beneficial or so 
far reaching as furnishing opportunities for work. “The solution 
of the problem must be undertaken by organized industry, and not 
by charity under any name or form.” Means for public work will 
be effective ‘only if carried on according to all the normal standards 
and methods and discriminations of industrial efficiency.” 

3. Emphasis is placed upon the need of vocational training for chil- 
dren. “The system of public education must be adapted to the varying 
capacities and tendencies of boys and girls, and in providing indus- 
trial training at a sufficiently early age to make it profitable to those 
that by reason of poverty or capacity are destined for early entrance 
into industry.” This adaptation of a public educational system to indus- 
trial conditions requires the cooperation of industry and civic bodies 
to receive the best results. 

We wish more space had been devoted to the Child Labor problem 
which is a constant source of supply to the problem of unemployment. 
The untrained of to-day become the unfit and the misfit of to-morrow. 
This could have been done at the cost of less attention to the evils of 
Intelligence Offices and Employment Bureaus, great as these evils are. 

Keller, Georgia. Henry Rankin. 

War, Science and Civilization. By William E. Ritter. Boston: Sher- 
man, French & Company. 1915. i2mo, pp. 125. $1.25. 

Civilization, not war, is the theme of this essay. That leading nations 
on both sides in the present war assert with the greatest positiveness, 
and undoubtedly with sincerity', that they are fighting for civilization 
as well as for their own interests, influences the author to analyze 
the subject of civilization from the biological standpoint. Further, 
since science and scientific ideas are playing such important parts in 
the present conflict — the physicist, the chemist and the engineer being 
not only “behind the guns” but also behind the departments of state 
and war — a man of science, and particularly a biologist, may contribute 
something significant to the great open discussion. 

The analysis of Civilization begins with the assertion that “the 
man who does not live by bread alone is exactly the man we call 
civilized”. Civilization is not a matter of geographic boundaries, but 
of subjecting nature to man’s intellect and will. The problem is to 
allot the earth among the peoples of the earth in proportion to their 
ability to use it well. War has been, and is one of the most common 
methods employed to make the division ; but war is unscientific, un- 
natural and generally unsuccessful. Therefore, a more effective 
method to accomplish the aim of civilization is needed. 

Statesmen, students of political economy and even scientists have 
justified war, using for arguments the phrases: “natural economy”, 


“overproduction”, “natural selection”, “pressure of population upon 
the means of subsistence”, “biological struggle for existence”, “sur- 
vival of the fittest”, “cleansing flames of war”. These phrases, how- 
ever, represent a philosophy which fails to consider that the co- 
ordinating unifying and integrating forces of organic evolution are 
as fundamental as are the differentiating, specializing and competitive 

Nature’s capacity for man’s sustenance is unbounded; man possesses 
an unlimited capacity for progress. How to guide man’s latent capa- 
city and create favorable conditions for its development is the 
problem. Nations, in this respect, are governed by the same rule as 
individuals. True culture will produce variety. International rela- 
tions will follow, and civilization will produce a brotherhood of man. 
“Fellow feeling is the extreme term of the integrative series of human 

War is not always nor wholly bad, but because it is so costly and 
uncertain of accomplishing its object, the only rational, and even scien- 
tific, way for a nation with a growing population pressing hard on its 
territorial limits, while other nations own more territory than they 
need, to obtain relief, is by mutual concessions. “Why should nations 
sacrifice innumerable lives and cause untold sufferings in war, holding 
such deeds to be the zenith of national honor, but viewing the sacrifice 
of a piece of territory as the nadir of dishonor.” 

The argument is applied by stating what our nation might do in 
the present critical period. Three “internal improvements” must be 
undertaken by the government, looking to the creation of a department 
of education of high rank, to the establishment of a national theatre, 
and to the founding of a national university. Internationally, since 
Japan, for instance, needs more territory and we could spare some, 
adjust the problem by the transfer of the Hawaiian Islands, rather 
than resort to arms. 

It is pleasing to note the high value attributed to Religion as a 
potent formative factor in civilization and culture. Religion is an 
essential; and “scientific men, whose religious endowments are so 
weak as to permit them to contend that religion is a “passing phase” 
in human culture, are at best men of secondary or tertiary achieve- 
ment in discovery”. 

But, religion, in this essay, does not give God supremacy. “The 
religion of a man who has reached a high state of culture is the 
faith-reduction of his whole self to the whole universe outside of 
himself.” And in the same chapter are these statements : “How can 

he conscientiously withhold from nature part of that sense of depen- 
dence which he so gladly acknowledges to be due to God?” “Every 
great forward step in civilization is testimony that part of the benefi- 
cence which surely pertains to this universe in some way is inherent in 
it and does not belong to God alone.” “Why should not the mother- 
hood of nature appeal as strongly to our religious sentiments as the 
fatherhood of God?” Such differentiation is not religious to the 


Christian, who recognizes that it is in God that “we live, and move, 
and have our being”. 

We feel that our country needs, for the greater development of cul- 
ture, not only to have poetry, drama, music, painting and sculpture 
“integrated in an evolutionary sense, with the industrial, political and 
economic life.” It needs also to listen with greater humility to Him 
who said : “I am come that they might have life, and that they might 
have it more abundantly.” 

Keller, Ga. Henry Rankin. 

Les Femmes de 1914-1915. I. Les Heroines. Yvonnes Pitrois. J. H. 
Jeheber, Editeur, Geneve (Suisse). 1-64. Prix: 75 centimes. 

The bright side of war is the heroism to which it gilves rise. This 
little book is the moving story of the heorines who gave themselves 
for France and humanity during the dark days of the autumn of 1914 
and the spring of 1915. No more beautiful story can be imagined than 
how little eight-year-old Lise on Christmas Eve last, refused to 
reveal the hiding place of the French soldiers, saving them from the 
Germans who threatened to kill her with the sword and at the same 
time keeping her mother’s exhortation that one must not lie even to 
one’s enemies. 

Lincoln University, Pa. George Johnson. 

Continuous Bloom in America. By Louise Shelton. New York: 
Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1915. 

The thanks of American householders are due to the author and. 
the publishers of this book for supplying what appears to us to be 
the most useful and the most richly illustrated guide book to our 
favorite flowers. Mrs. Shelton has devoted her zeal and a great deal 
of her time to the task of enumerating and describing the brightest of 
our popular plants, and finding out what should be planted, and 
when and where, and what precautions should be exercised so as to 
avoid defects, and so as to develop the best qualities of every species. 
The result is a somewhat large and exquisitely beautiful book, and a 
great deal of pertinent information about objects which force them- 
selves on our attention, and draw out our admiration. Taken together 
she finds that our favorite flowers are fit to bloom for about half 
of the year, or from April to October; though taken separately most 
of them do not continue in bloom for half so long. Next she sets 
herself to explain how we should sow or plant the species, by bulbs 
or seeds, and in what kind of soil, as well as particulars as to water- 
ing, protecting from shade, and from excessive heat or cold, and 
many other conditions affecting the life and behaviour of the different 
species, and the many gardeners’ accomplishments which are familiar 
to the specialists. She likewise enlightens us as to the improved varia- 
tions of so many of our flowers which have been acquired since pre- 
Darwinian times, and which are largely testing the skill of the Dutch 
gardeners and of many others. 



What, when and where we are to plant come up for exposition, and 
her illustrations, many of them from our own neighboring states, show 
the success of her methods. I have compared her pictures with the 
illustrations of some of our gardeners’ books, which give me both 
the names of the pictures of a great host of these most charming 
plants, and I have great pleasure in tendering the thanks of our readers 
both to the authoress and to the publishers for this most beautiful 

Princeton. Geo. Macloskie. 

Our National Defence. The Patriotism of Peace. By George H. 
Maxwell. The Fourth Book of the Home Crofters. Washington: 
Rural Settlements Association, Maryland Building; New Orleans: 
Cottage Exchange Building. 1915. 8vo; pp. xix, 392. 

This plausible and fascinating book reminds us of Sir Thomas More’s 
Utopia. If the latter defined the sphere and presented the life of each 
citizen, Mr. Maxwell’s plan would do so in the case of five millions 
of ours. He would develop an army of this size, both for the recla- 
mation of our country from flood and drought and for its defence 
against foreign invasion or internal strife. This great host should be 
organized as “a separate department of the National government like 
the Forest Service or Reclamation Service, and should be known as the 
Homecroft Service”. It should be distributed, in Minnesota and West 
Virginia, and it should be trained there “as Homecrofters and Foresters”; 
in Louisiana, and it should be trained there “as Homecrofters and Sail- 
ors”; in the Colorado Valley, and it should be trained there “as Home- 
crofters and Irrigators”; in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, and 
it should be trained there also “as Homecrofters and Irrigators”; and 
in Nevada, and it should be trained there “as Homecrofters and Cavalry- 
men”. During two entire months of each year the Homecroft service 
should be under the direction of the War Department and should give 
their whole time to a “regular annual march, encampment and man- 
oeuvres”; and in addition to this they should be drilled at least once 
each week at home. Some of the advantages of this system would be 
as follows : 

1. It would provide an army of adequate size for the defense of 
our country. 

2. This army, having been developed and disciplined by strenuous 
labor in the forests and the deserts, would be physically fit for military 
service as troops drawn from our cities could never be. 

3. Instead of being condemned to idleness in barracks, “the soldiers 
comprising these reserve forces would be doing useful and productive 
work and would build enormously valuable national improvements. 

4. Because of these improvements, the Homecroft Service would not 
only eventually become self-supporting, but would yield enormous 
profit to the government. 

5. It would be of equal advantage to those composing it. “In return 



for an annual rental of $120. each Homecrofter would get a home that 
would yield him a comfortable income, instruction in everything he 
would need to know to produce the desired results from its intensive 
cultivation, schooling for his children, — in fact evey advantage that 
comes within the compass of a wage-earner’s life, — and during the 
live year period of enlistment he would learn what would be to him 
the most valuable trade he could be taught — the trade of getting his 
own living by his own labor and that of his family from an acre of 
ground. He would be trained with that end in view — to lay by 
enough from his sales of surplus products during the five years of his 
service to buy a Homecroft of his own, at the expiration of that 
term, in any part of the country where he desired to settle. He should 
save at least $2000. during the five years.” All this sounds well, but 
would it work out? The engineer and the intensive farmer are only at 
the beginning of their achievements, but may even they hope to 
reclaim and to develop sufficiently to realize the results on which Mr. 
Maxwell builds? If they could, would the Homecroft Service prove 
as alluring as he supposes that it would? A life of honest toil in the 
country on one acre of ground, though it were sure to yield a 
competence, would not in the judgment of the reviewer, appeal very 
strongly to the average man, and still less to the American. Doubt- 
less, it should, but it does not. The glamor of military service, in 
spite of its idleness, and perhaps because of its idleness, would attract 
far more. Beyond this, it may be questioned whether agricultural labors 
would afford adequate military discipline. They might secure the 
needed physical vigor, but would they secure the temper and the obedi- 
ence, the indifference to death, demanded as never before in the soldier 
of to-day? We think not. Only a standing army could resist standing 

The most serious objection, however, to the whole scheme is its 
socialistic trend. The socialization of so large a proportion of the 
nation as 5,000,000 could not fail to alarm every thoughful individual. 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr. 

Rung Fu Tze. A Dramatic Poem. By Paul Carus. London, Chicago; 

The Open Court Publishing Company. 1915. 8vo, pp. 72. 

If for no other reason, this drama would be interesting as an illustra- 
tion of the marvelous fertility and versatility of its author. In prose 
and poetry, in philosophy and literature, in physics and in linguistics, 
he would seem to be equally at home. Of almost every kind of 
writing he has done much, and nothing that he has written is not worth 
while. Much of his work, indeed, is distinctly good, and that, too, in 
spite of difficulties neither few nor small. 

Such is the case with the poem before us. Confucious is not an 
inspiring theme. His career was equally lacking in both the tragic 
and the comic. A great man, his greatness partook of the commonplace. 
Yet Dr. Carus has made him interesting. He has so presented him that 



we can feel the brotherhood between him and ourselves. He has so 
set before us Chinese life and thought that we can understand them as 
never before; and he has done all this in measures that are true and in 
language that is really poetic. 

Princeton. William Brenton Greene, Jr. 


American Journal of Theology, Chicago, October: Kirsopp Lake, 

Theology of the Acts of the Apostles ; A. Edward Harvey, Economic 
Self-interest in the German Anti-Clericalism of the Fifteenth and 
Sixteenth Centuries; John R. Brown, Character of Jesus: a Genetic 
Interpretation; Ukichi Kawaguchi, Doctrine of Evolution and the 
Conception of God; A. Marmorstein, Doctrine of the Resurrection of 
the Dead in Rabbinical Theology. 

Bibliotheca Sacra, Oberlin, October: E. S. Buchanan, New Bible 

Text From Spain; Hans C. Juell, Publishing the Fourth Gospel; J. J. 
Lias, Unity of Isaiah ; Edwin S. Carr, Bacon’s “Christianity Old and 
New”; Harold M. Wiener, First Steps in the Study of Glossing; 
Norvelle W. Sharpe, Athanasius the Copt, and His Times; David F. 
Estes, Religious Ideas Peculiar to Christianity. 

Catholic Historical Review, Washington, October: C. M. Antony, 

Lulworth Castle : Its History and Memories ; Paul J. Foik, Pioneer 
Efforts in Catholic Journalism in the United States; Georgina P. 
Curtis, Early Conversions to the Catholic Church in America. 

Church Quarterly Review, London, October: J. K. Mozley, Ten- 

dencies in Christology; F. A. Dixey, Recent Developments in Biology; 
W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Liberal Judaism and the Christian Faith; 
Herbert A. Strong, Slavonic Culture ; J. Armitage Robinson, Convo- 
cation of Canterbury: Its Early History; W. H. Frere, The Palae- 
ography of Early Medieval Music; F. J. Badcock, Dr. Illingworth and 
the Gospel Miracles ; The Issues of the War. 

Constructive Quarterly, New York, December: William T. Man- 

ning, Protestant Episcopal Church and Christian Unity; H. Mulert, 
Nature of Catholicism as it Appears to Protestants; Allan Menzies, 
Call of the Church to the Nations; Bishop of Bloemfontein, Uni- 
formity: Federation: Unity; D. Macfadyen and T. A. Lacey, Inter- 
communion; Archbishop Evodkim, Constructive Sketch of St. John the 
Divine; P. T. Forsyth, Lay Religion; Joseph Schmidlin, War and 
Missions; E. C. Dewick, Evangelicalism in the Church of England; 
J. W. Buckham, A Unifying Theology; C. E. A. Winslow, Neutrality 
of Churches in the War Against Disease; Charles Hebermann, Man, 
Nature, and God; G. F. Haspels, Tolstoy. 

East & West, London, October: R. Maconachie, The Response of 
India to the Call of Empire; Dr. Palmer, Topics of War-time in 
India ; Eleanor C. Gregory, Message of the Christian Mystics for 



India; S. M. Zwemer, Horizon of the Moslem World; A. J. Marris, 
Forty Years in Zenanas — Contrasts and Changes; Conversion of the 
Slavs; G. C. Binyon, Liturgies in the Mission Field; G. B. Ekana- 
yake, Buddhist Revival in Ceylon. 

Expositor, London, October : Maurice Jones, Epistles of the Cap- 
tivity; A. E. Garvie, Synoptic Echoes and Second-hand Reports in 
the Fourth Gospel; Frank Granger, Style of St. Paul; P. T. Forsyth, 
Moral Finality and Certainty in the Holiness of the Cross ; H. Erskine 
Hill, Mystical Significance of Apocalyptic Numbers ; James Moffatt, 
Literary Illustrations of the Book of Numbers. The Same, November: 
H. A. A. Kennedy, Significance and Range of the Covenant Conception 
in the New Testament; E. S. Buchanan, Search for the Original 
Words of the Gospel; Alexander Souter, Von Soden’s Text of the 
Greek New Testament, examined in select Passages; P. T. Forsyth, 
In What Sense did Jesus Preach the Gospel?; A. E. Garvie, Witness 
of the Fourth Gospel; J. A. Findlay, The Great Supper in Luke xiv. 

Expository Times, Edinburgh, October: Notes on Recent Exposi- 

tion; H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Apostolic Consciousness and the 
Interpretation of the Epistles ; R. H. Strachan, Is the Fourth Gospel 
a Literary Unity?; Berkeley G. Collins, Sacrament of Baptism in 
the New Testament; Albert T. Clay, The Son’s Portion in the Oldest 
Laws known. The Same, December: Notes of Recent Exposition; 

Berkeley G. Collins, The Sacrament of Baptism in the New Testa- 
ment; W. Cruickshank, The New Atlas of the Holy Land; A. H. 
Sayce, Archaeology of the Book of Genesis. 

Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, October: Alfred Fawkes,, 
Position and Prospects of the Roman Catholic Church; Benjamin A. 
G. Fuller, Conflict of Moral Obligation in the Trilogy of Aeschylus; 
Ephraim Emerton, Fra Salimbene and the Franciscan Ideal; Benja- 
min W. Bacon, Reflections of Ritual in Paul; George L. Robinson, 
Recent Excavations and Explorations in Palestine. 

Hibbert Journal, Boston, October: The Editor, A Theological Holi- 
day and After; M. Epstein, Some Recent German War Literature; 
G. Lowes Dickinson, A German on the War; Professor Royce, An 
American Thinker on the War; E. B. McGilvary, Warfare of Moral 
Ideals; Viscount Bryce, Facts and Questions Before Us; Charles 
F. Thwing, Effect of the War upon Higher Learning in America; 
Principal Forsyth, Ibsen’s Treatment of Guilt; John W. Graham, 
The War: A Quaker Apologia; Alban G. Widgery, Idea of Resurrec- 
tion ; J. Arthur Hill, Fechner’s Theory of Life After Death ; E. C. 
Thw^aytes, Mysticism and Mahomedanism. 

International Journal of Ethics, Concord, October: Clive Bell, 

Art and War; L. S. Woolf, International Morality; Bertrand Rus- 
sell, Non-Resistance; Samuel G. Smith, Rights of Criminals; C. G. 
Shaw, Culture and Dilettantism with the French; Norman Wilde, 
Conversion of Rousseau; Stephen H. Allen, Moral Responsibility 
for Wars; Delisle Burns, When Peace Breaks Out. 

Interpreter, London, October: S. C. Carpenter, Christian Liberal- 

r 74 


ism; R. H. Kennett, The Law; Richard Brook, Passivity of God; 
Arthur Wright, Some Editorial Notes in the Fourth Gospel; F. R. 
Barry, Christ’s Theory of Punishment; W. C. Roberts, Miracle and 
Miracles; George Gardner, St. Paul as a Mystic; G. Simpson Rule, 
The Second and Fourth Gospels. 

Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin, October: Encyclical of Bene- 

dict XV ; J. Kelleher, Market Prices, III ; John Blowick, Sacrament 
of Penance — An Historical Survey; Hugh Pope, What was St. Paul’s 
Infirmity?; J. Kinane, Suspension ex Informata Conscientia — Its Ori- 
gin and the Cause of the Infliction. 

Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia, October: B. Halper, An 

Autograph Responsum of Maimonides; E. Sapir, Notes on Judeo- 
German Phonology; M. H. Segal, Studies in the Books of Samuel, II; 
Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Midrash and Mishnah, A Study in the Early 
History of the Halakah, III. 

Journal of Theological Studies, London, October: F. C. Burkitt, 
W and ®, Studies in the Western Text of St. Mark; H. F. Stewart, 
Commentary by Remigius Autissiodorensis on the De Consolatione 
Philosophiae of Boethius; C. Boutflower, Historical Value of Daniel 
v and vi; F. H. Chase, Reading in 2 Corinthians 3:17; C. H. Turner, 
Churches at Winchester in the Early Eleventh Century; G. W. Butter- 
worth, Clement of Alexandria and Art; D. P. Buckle, Bohairic Lec- 
tions of IVisdom from a Rylands Library MS. 

London Quarterly Review, London, October : J. Rendel Harris, 

The Prodigal Son; P. T. Forsyth, Prayer; St. Nihal Singh, Japan 
and the War; Thomas Nicol, The Gospels in the Making; Else 
Carrier, A Club of Equality: an Episode of the French Revolution; 
W. T. Davison, Modernism in Religion ; Henry Long, Buddhism and 

Lutheran Church Review, Philadelphia, October: George W. Sandt, 
The Church and Social Service ; C. A. Ritchie, Message of Protest- 
antism for America; Hugo C. Wendel, Evolutionary Revelation; C. J. 
Soedergren, Methods of Instruction in Theology; Hugo W. Hoffman, 
Rust’s Modernism and the Reformation; John D. M. Brown, A 
Twentieth Century Religious Drama; Robert Schlotter, Europe Won 
for Christianity; M. Reu, Religious Instruction of the Young in the 
Sixteenth Century?; A. T. Michler, Christian Psychology; W. 
Jentsch, Was Shakespeare a Romanist? 

Lutheran Quarterly, Gettysburg, October : David H. Bauslin, Per- 

manent Factors in the Civilization of the Middle Ages; Emanuel J. 
Kallina, John Huss ; Luther M. Kuhns, Luther — His Relation to 
John Huss ; John A. Hall, Relation of the Idea of God to a Theory 
of the Atonement; Herbert C. Alleman, Semi-Centennial of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund ; Marion J. Kline, The Church and 
Higher Education ; Paul H. Heisey, A Psychological Study of Luth- 
eranism ; J. S. Simon, Dogmatics and the Problem of Sin. 

Methodist Review. New York. November-December : James R. 

Day, Restore Our Episcopacy, II; Emil C. Wilm, The New Philosophy 



and the Renaissance of Spirit; Grant Showerman, The Right to the 
Air; L. H. Dorchester, Messianic Prophecy — Old and New; W. E. 
Smyser, English Literature Yesterday and ToDay; Felicia B. Clark, 
Keats and His Philosophy of Life; G. F. Wells, Efficient Church Union 
for Country Towns; Oscar Kuhns, The Opportunity for the Church 
To-Day; Davis W. Clark, One Hundred Years of Anthony Trollope; 
A. H. Tuttle, The Negroes of Jamaica. 

Methodist Review Quarterly, Nashville, October: Henry W. Clark, 
A Plea for an Alliance between Philosophy and Theology; Louise S. 
Houghton, The Mission Populaire de France; Sophia B. Herrick, 
Personal Recollections of my Father and Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Davis; 
j. A. Rice, Educational Possibilities and Responsibilities of the Local 
Church; T. J. Carter, The Cotton Mill Problem from an Operative’s 
Standpoint; Charles A. Ell wood, Personal Religion and Social Work; 
Winfred C. Cronk, Spener and Pietism. 

Monist, Chicago, October: Gottlob Frege, Fundamental Laws of 

Arithmetic; Florian Cajori, Oughtred’s Ideas and Influence on the 
Teaching of Mathematics; IRuggles Gates, Mutation Concepts in Re- 
lation to Organic Structure; Walter W. Hyde, Religious Views of 
Euripides as Shown in the “Bacchanals”; Sydney Waterlow, The 
Father of Monism (Parmenides). 

Reformed Church Review, Lancaster, October: A. E. Truxal, 

Facts of the Past and Reflections thereon : Ray E. Dotterer, Miracles 
and Christianity; Theodore F. Herman, Modern Dogmatics; W. D. 
Happel, Evangelical Piety; E. E. Kresge, Why I Believe in Christi- 
anity; Paul J. Dundore, Application of the Doctrine of Moral and 
Physical Evil; Gustav R. Poetter, The New Apologetic; Philip 
Vollmer, Place of Socrates in the Development of Philosophical 

Review and Expositor, Louisville, October : Charles A. Stakely, 

Fanny Crosby; Julius W. Richter, 'Religious Movement in Germany 
during the World War; George B. Eager, Lessons from the Life of 
John Huss Five Hundred Years After ; J. M. Burnett, Teaching of 
Jesus in the Light of the Newer Psychology; A. Palmieri, The Rus- 
sian Polemical Literature on Russian Baptists ; John H. Barber, So- 
cializing the Christian Order; O. 0. Fletcher, The Existence of God: 
a Study of Religious Consciousness ; Arthur W. Cleaves, Signifi- 
cance of Whitefield. 

Union Seminary Review, Richmond, October: Maurice G. Fulton, 
Browning and the Bible; Eugene Caldwell, The Ideal Christian, A 
Book Study of Philippians; Parke P. Flournoy, Nimrod and the Be- 
ginning of His Kingdom; R. F. Campbell, Inter-Relations of the In- 
dividual and the Institutions of Society; Thornton Whaling, Feder- 
ation of American Presbyterianism ; J. Layton Mauze, The Seminary 
and Its Alumni. 

Yale Review, New Haven, October: L. P. Jacks, Hatred — and a 

Possible Sequel; Henry D. Sedgwick, Italy and the War; Morris 
Hillquit, The War and International Socialism; Alexander D. Noyes, 



The Economic Aftermath; Charles M. Bakewell, Nietzsche, A Mod- 
ern Stoic; George N. Tricoche, Compulsory Service in the United 
States ; Henry S. Canby, College Life and College Education ; Charles 
H. Sherrill, American Country Life in Old French Memoirs; R. 
Emory Holloway, Walt Whitman in New Orleans. 

Bilychnis, Roma, Agosto: Romolo Murri, L’individuo e la storia; 
W. J. McGlothlin, La crisi della teologia cristiana; Mario Puglisi, 
II problema morale nelle religioni primitive; Giovanni Pioli, Sulla via 
dell-Unione delle Chiese; W. Monod, La cultura della vita in- 
teriore. The Same, Settembre; Mario Rossi, Giovanni Hus, l’eroe 
della nazione boema ; Mario Puglisi, II problema morale nelle religioni 
primitive; R. Allier e W. Schlatter, Sara cristiana la Cina?; Giovan- 
ni Pioli, Invocando il Profeta; R. Pfeiffer, II problema dell’odio. 

La Ciencia Tomista, Madrid, Septiembre-Octubre : E. Colunga, 

Intelectualistas y misticos en la telogia espanola del siglo XVI ; 
Augustro Saudreau, Utilidad practica de los estudios misticos; V. 
Beltran de Heredia, La ensenananza de Santo Tomas en la Compania 
de Jesus durante el primer siglo de su existencia ; Antolin L. Pelaez, 
El vino en la teologia; Sabino M. Lozano, El ’Discurso sobre el 
metodo’ de la filosofia catolica. 

Gercformecrd Theologisch Tijdschrift, Heusden, October: G. Ch. 

Aalders, Prof. Geesink, 19 September 1890-1915; S. Greijdanus, Vol- 
ledig en Juist; E. D. J. de Jongh, Jr., Eenige staaltjes van Zondags- 
ontheiliging in de XVIIe eeuw; K. J. Kapteijn, Hoe moet men naar 
Gereformeerd kerkrecht handelen met zich onttrekkende leden. The 
Same, November: J. G. Kunst, Verslag van de Vergadering van 

Geref. predikanten; J. C. Rullmann, Kroniek. 

Lehre und Wehre, St. Louis, Oktober : Die Studenten der Theologie 
als gute Textuales; Luther iiber den Krieg; Romer 11:5, 6. The 
Same, November: Luther ein treuer Bekenner seines Heilandes; I 
Kor. 15:22. 

Theologisch Tijdschrift, Leiden, XLIX: 5: A. Marmorstein, Juden 
und Judenthum in der Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christ- 
iani; H. R. Offerhaus, Rondom de verheerlijking op den berg; C. 
Pekelharing, Eenige woorden over het verband tusschen godsdienst 
en zedelijkheid; Th. L. W. van Ravesteijn, Exodus 3:14-15. The 
Same, XLIX: 6: Felix Ortt, Studies in het grensgebied van natuur- 
en godsdienstwetenschap ; L. N. de Jong, Schets eener vrijzinnig- 
christelijke Levensleer; H. J. Toxopeus, Mattheus 11:11; F. W. Gros- 
heide, Nog eens Matth. 1 :i6. 

Theologische Studien, Utrecht, XXXIII :5: E. H. Wieringa, Paulus 
en Jezus; A. van der Flier G. Jzn, Het zesde gebod en de oorlog. 

Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie, Innsbruck, XXXIX :4: 
Franz Schindler, Quellen des Schadenersatzes in der Moralthe- 
ologie ; Wilhelm Kratz, Georg Gobat S. J. ; J. B. Umberg, Der HI. 
Geist als Messiasgabe und die Firmung; Martin Grabmann, Uber 
Wert und Methode des Studiums der scholastischen Handschriften.